^-^ 


e6pyl 


■•,>^  f 


;i--/ 


# 

CL 

.^ 

(0 

s 

*^ 

JO 

- 

.il^^ 

]£ 

ss 

•^ 

Dl 

^t^ 

*S5 

;^ 

o 

^ 

5 

^ 

(U 

{^ 

c 

t^ 

o 

bfl 

cC 

»2S 

&H 

< 

:| 

l^ 

3 

Sif 

^ 

E 

.«o 

•o 

M 

a 

"•^ 

^ 

PCI 

CO 

1^ 

^ 

s 

^ 

1 

« 

•♦-• 

c 

s 

^ 

t 

c/) 

1 

^ 

CL 

3= 

REPLY 


&h  d  Infant  §apfem, 


BY  ROBERT  BOYTE  C.  HOWELL,  D.D.,  PASTOR  OF  TKE 
SECOND  BAPTIST  CHURCH,  RICHMOND,  VA. 


Key.  L/KOSSEE,  A.M. 

OP    THE    VIRGINIA    ANNUAL    CONFERENCE. 


"  We  must  abhor  the  arrogancy  of  them  that  frame  new  engines 
to  rack  and  tear  the  church  of  Christ,  under  the  pretence  of  obviating 
errors  and  maintaining  the  truth.  We  must  avoid  the  common  con- 
fusion of  speaking  of  those  who  make  no  difference  between  verbal 
and  real  errors,  and  hate  the  spirit  of  those  who  tear  their  brethren 
as  heretics  before  they  understand  them." — Baxtee. 


RICHMOND,  VA.: 

PUBLISHED  BY  THE  AUTHOR. 

1855. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1856,  by 
L.  ROSSER, 
in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for 
the  Eas^tern  District  of  Virginia. 


8TEEE0TYPED  BY  L.  JOHNSON  &  CO. 
PHILADELPHIA. 


PREFACE 


After  the  work  on  Christian  Baptism  was  pre- 
pared for  the  press,  the  treatise  of  Dr.  Howell  on 
the  "Evils  of  Infant  Baptism/'  whose  very  title 
strikes  every  pious  and  candid  mind  with  astonish- 
ment, fell  into  the  author's  hand,  and  at  first  he 
resolved  to  take  no  special  notice  of  it,  as  he  be- 
lieved he  had  written  all  that  was  material  or 
required  to  support  the  scriptural  and  rational  doc- 
trine of  Infant  Baptism,  and  that,  therefore,  the 
refutation  of  the  above  treatise  was  already  antici- 
pated ;  but  upon  mature  reflection,  and  some  obser- 
vation, and  from  the  apprehension  that  the  Doc- 
tor's book,  if  unanswered,  might  produce  real  evil 
in  various  quarters,  he  resolved  to  give  it  a  fair 
and  impartial  analysis,  in  the  form  of  a  Reply. 

We  are  most  sincere  in  the  opinion,  that  the 
1*  5 


6  PREFACE. 


treatise  before  us  contains  some  of  the  most  erro- 
neous views  of  Infant  Baptism,  some  of  the  most 
illogical  arguments  in  support  of  those  views,  some 
of  the  most  glaring  inconsistencies  and  contradic- 
tions in  argument,  some  of  the  most  dogmatic  and 
arrogant  assumptions  of  truth,  some  of  the  most 
palpable  evidences  of  ignorance  of  ecclesiastical 
history,  some  of  the  most  painful  perversions  of 
the  views  of  Paedo-baptist  authors,  some  of  the  most 
uncharitable  reflections  on  the  piety  and  learning 
of  the  Pgedo-baptist  churches,  some  of  the  most 
insidious  assaults  upon  the  common  cause  of 
Christianity  and  the  unity  of  the  church,  and  (if 
its  principles  be  legitimately  applied)  some  of  the 
most  powerful  arguments  against  the  salvation  of 
infants,  we  remember  to  have  seen  from  the  pen 
of  any  writer,  Christian  or  infidel.  The  Doctor 
seems  to  have  collected  and  concentrated  in  one 
"  bold  ^'  and  headlong  enterprise  against  Infant 
Baptism,  all  that  enthusiasm,  exclusiveness  and 
infatuation  could  furnish  him,  and,  in  the  expres- 
sion of  his  opposition  to  Infant  Baptism,  to  have 
used  the  strongest  terms  his  knowledge  of  the 


PREFACE, 


'  English  language  could  suggest ;  unconscious  or 
careless,  in  the  use  of  such  terms,  of  the  suspicions 
which  he  casts  upon  the  sincerity  and  piety  of  those 
he  is  pleased  to  call  ^^ friends"  and  " brethren. '* 
I  The  manner  in  which  he  questions  the  sincerity 
and  piety  of  his  "friends''  and  "brethren"  fur- 
nishes them  with  ample  ground  on  which  to  ques- 
tion his  own  —  the  doubts  he  expresses  of  their 
having  found  the  "  way  of  salvation"  might  justify 
them  in  doubting  whether  he  has  found  it  — 
though  he  has  written  something  about  it  —  the 
earnest  solicitude  which  he  proclaims  in  their 
behalf  they  can  but  ascribe  to  a  morbid  piety,  or 
the  effusion  of  sectarian  zeal  —  and  the  rules  by 
which  he  attempts  to  disprove  the  soundness  of 
their  opinions,  are  the  very  criteria  by  which 
they  demonstrate  the  falseness  and  sophistry  of 
his  own. 

In  many  works  written  by  the  Baptists  against 
Infant  Baptism,  an  approximation  of  error  has 
often  been  made  so  near  to  the  truth,  that  strong 
plausibility  at  first  sight  captivated  the  mind  of 
the  incautious  reader,  and  so  was  confounded  with 


8  PREFACE, 


sonnd  argnment — just  as  opposite  colors  in  a 
painting,  fading  slowly  and  gradually  from  the 
highest  intensity  in  either  extreme,  shade  insensi- 
bly into  each  other,  till  it  is  impossible  for  the 
unskilful  eye  to  designate  the  nice  point  or  line 
where  they  meet  and  mingle.  But  a  conspicuous 
and  general  characteristic  of  the  treatise  before  us 
is,  that  the  author  introduces  his  arguments  with 
a  statement  of  general  principles  or  truths,  univer- 
sally admitted  by  evangelical  churches,  and  then 
boldly  strikes  out  his  course  from  those  truths,  to 
which  he  never  returns,  and  continues  his  progress 
step  by  step  endlessly  in  the  same  line  of  diver- 
gence, just  as  a  tangent,  struck  off  from  the  curve, 
of  which  it  is  no  part,  to  which  it  can  never 
return,  and  from  which  it  departs  interminably. 

To  be  more  particular.  He  confounds  (some- 
times with  a  skilful  hand,  but  always  in  desperate 
confusion)  the  corruptions  of  heretical,  with  the 
orthodoxy  of  evangelical,  churches  —  arguing  illo- 
gically  from  the  abuses  of  Infant  Baptism  in  the 
former,  to  the  evils  of  it  in  the  latter  —  consider- 
ing it  only  as  it  has  been  involved  in  fanciful 


PREFACE. 


appendages  and  absurd  ceremonies,  and  made  the 
occasion  of  numberless  abuses  since  the  days  of 
the  apostles  —  and  omitting  altogether  to  notice 
it  in  its  original  apostolic  purity  and  simplicity, 
which  is  the  only  proper  light  in  which  to  view 
it.  This  sophistical  and  unfair  mode  of  treating 
the  subject  runs  through  his  book  from  beginning 
to  end,  which  the  reader,  with  a  little  reflection, 
may  detect  in  the  very  first  pages,  and  so  expect 
to  find  repeated  on  almost  every  succeeding  page. 
Dr.  Howell,  as  a  Christian  minister,  may  do 
good,  but  his  book,  in  our  judgment,  can  produce 
nothing  but  evil  in  his  own  church,  and  in  other 
evangelical  churches.  With  him  as  a  Christian 
minister  we  have  nothing  to  do  —  except  in  cer- 
tain inconsistencies  which  are  so  palpable  that, 
for  the  sake  of  reason,  they  should  be  noticed, 
and  in  certain  instances,  his  motives  are  so  obvious 
that,  in  justice  to  our  common  Christianity,  they 
should  be  exposed.  But  his  book,  published  for 
the  guidance  and  instruction  of  "the  million," 
?nd  widely  circulated  by  the  indefatigable  Bap- 
tists, we   shall   arraign   before   that  jurisdiction 


10 


PREFACE. 


where  a  candid  public  alone   must  judge   and 
decide. 

It  bad  been  well  for  the  general  Church  of 
Grod,  and  vastly  promotive  of  the  great  interests 
of  Christianity,  in  this  exciting  and  sectarian  age, 
in  which  so  much  of  the  strength  of  the  evangeli- 
cal churches  is  wasted  in  family  broils  and  contro- 
versies, had  the  Doctor  imitated  the  example  of 
Robert  Hall,  a  liberal  and  learned  Baptist  of 
England,  and  expended  his  energy  in  noble  efforts 
to  instruct  his  brethren  in  the  true  terms  of  Chris- 
tian communion.  But  alas,  the  elegance  and  force 
with  which  Eobert  Hall  attempted  to  effect  this 
noble  object,  instead  of  producing  in  him  the 
exercise  of  indulgent  love  towards  his  Protestant 
brethren,  seems  to  have  excited  a  painful  appre- 
hension for  the  permanence  of  the  Baptists  as  a 
separate  Christian  sect,  and  probably  roused  him 
to  write,  on  the  one  hand,  his  "  Terms  of  Sacra- 
mental Communion"  against  Eobert  Hall,  and  on 
the  other,  his  "  Evils  of  Infant  Baptism'^  against 
the  Paedo-Baptists.  In  the  former  case,  his  design 
obviously  is,  to  establish  the  dogma  of  ^' close 


PREFACE.  11 


commumon ;"  in  the  latter,  the  dogma  of  "  exclu- 
sive immersion ,"  in  both,  to  vindicate  the  Baptist 
church  as  the  only  true  church  on  earth  —  not 
perceiving,  doubtless,  that  the  want  of  charity,  in 
each  instance,  is  ominous  of  failure  in  both  adven- 
tures. With  the  first  leisure  we  shall  write  an 
extensive  treatise  on  Open  Communion,  which  we 
have  been  requested  to  do  by  an  intelligent  friend, 
and  which  the  times  require.  On  the  subject  of 
Christian  Baptism,  we  have  already  written,  and 
leave  that  subject  to  ablel*  hands.  It  remains  for 
us  to  repel  the  charges,  and  correct  the  misrepre- 
sentations, in  the  "Evils  of  Infant  Baptism,'^  to 
which  we  now  invite  the  consideration  of  the 
reader. 

L.  K. 

NOEFOLK  City,  Va.,  December  28, 1854. 


^7.\  ^^  ^'j,  A 


We  shall  not  proceed  with  a  formal  statement 
chapter  by  chapter,  but  merely  state  and  consider 
the  arguments  in  the  order  in  which  the  Doctor 
has  arranged  them  successively  in  his  treatise. 

The  title  or  proposition  of  the  whole  treatise^ 
/^  The  Evils  of  Infant  Baptism/^  under  which  the 
Doctor  arranges  twenty-one  evils,  is  false  in  prin- 
ciple. He  makes  no  distinction  between  that 
which  is  in  itself  good  and  that  which  is  in  itself 
evil,  but  confounds  the  one  with  the  other,  and 
this  is  the  ground  of  all  the  false  conclusions  con- 
tained in  his  book.  That  which  is  good  in  itself 
may  be  abused,  and  the  abuse  only  is  an  evil, 
while  the  subject  of  abuse  continues  good  in  itself 
as  though  it  had  not  been  abused  in  a  single  in- 
stance, and  had  been  a  blessing  only  and  always 
to  mankind.  Life  is  a  good  in  itself,  and  yet  it  is 
abused  lamentably  and  fatally  in  a  thousand  ways. 
Liberty  is  a  good  in  itself,  and  yet  it  is  abused ; 
2  (13) 


14  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


influence  is  a  good  in  itself,  and  yet  it  is  often 
abused ;  knowledge  is  a  good  in  itself,  and  yet  it 
is  oftener  abused  than  improved;  the  grace  of 
'God  is  a  great  good  in  itself,  and  yet  many  receive 
it  in  vain ;  the  Bible  is  a  great  good  in  itself,  and 
yet  many  neglect  it,  and  others  "  wrest  it  to  their 
own  destruction/'  Christianity  is  a  gTcat  good, 
:and  yet  many  pervert  it  to  sectarian,  political  and 
worldly  purposes ;  the  sacraments  of  Christianity, 
the  Lord's  Supper  and  Baptism,  are  great  bless- 
ings when  properly  observed,  and  yet  many  dese- 
crate them  to  the  objects  of  selfishness  and  hypo- 
crisy ',  in  a  word,  every  thing  in  the  world,  good 
itself,  in  one  form  or  other,  has  been  abused  by 
man.  And  so  upon  the  mode  of  reasoning  applied 
T)y  Dr.  Howell,  we  must  conclude,  that  life,  liberty,, 
knowledge,  influence,  the  grace  of  God,  the  Bible, 
Christianity,  the  sacraments,  and  all  other  things 
in  the  world,  good  in  themselves,  are  evils,  because 
ihey  have  been  abused,  or  are  liable  to  abuse. 
Indeed,  God  himself  is  the  supreme,  necessarily 
■existing,  and  infinite  good,  and  the  source  of  all 
good  in  the  universe  and  in  eternity,  and  yet 
miserable  angels  and  miserable  men  exist;  so  that 
if  we  adopt  the  Doctor's  reasoning  here,  we  ^'  de- 
monstrate" that  the  infinite  God  is  an  infinite 
•€vil;  a  conclusion  sufficiently  absurd  to  demon- 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  15 


strate  the  supreme  folly  of  his  reasoning.  It 
would  be  proper  for  the  Doctor  to  prove  that  in- 
fant baptism  is  an  evil  in  itself,  and  not  an  evil 
because  of  the  abuses  of  which  it  has  been  made 
the  occasion  by  corrupt  men  :  by  the  latter  process 
he  can  never  prove  it  to  be  an  evil  in  itself^  the 
former  he  has  not  done.  With  this  remark  we 
introduce  the  subject  of  his  book. 

I.  "Infant  baptism  is  an  evil.  I  hold  myself 
bound  to  offer  in  this,  and  subsequent  chapters, 
such  proofs  of  its  truth  as  shall  be  irrefutable.  At 
present  I  shall  show  that  infant  baptism  is  an  evil 
because  it  is  unsupported  by  the  Word  of  Grod" 
(p.  1).  This  is  his  first  argument,  and  if  he  has 
established  this,  his  work  is  done,  and  well  done, 
he  need  proceed  no  farther.  But  this  he  has  not 
done,  as  we  shall  now  see.  As  an  "important 
preliminary  to  the  argument,"  he  adverts  to  "the 
great  Protestant  principle  :  The  Word  of  God  is  a 
perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice"  (p.  2).  This 
great  principle  we  most  cordially  adopt.  If  infant 
baptism  cannot  bear  the  test  of  this  principle,  then 
we  shall  be  compelled  to  renounce  the  doctrine. 
Here  is  the  Doctor's  method  :  "If  infant  baptism 
is  instituted  by  God,  it  must  be  plainly  taught  in 
his  Word.  The  passages  therefore  which  contain 
the  instructions  can  be  produced.     But  no  such 


16  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


passages  have  ever  yet  been  found.  They  never 
can  be  found.  They  do  not  exist''  (p.  6).  He 
then  concludes  :  ^'  Then  it  is  certain  beyond  ques- 
tion, that  infant  baptism,  since  it  is  not  enjoined, 
nor  taught,  nor  authorized  in  any  way,  is  unsup- 
ported by  the  Word  of  Grod"  (p.  7).  But  it  has 
been  proved,  again  and  again,  by  Pssdo-Baptists, 
that  it  is  positively  enjoined,  and  authorized,  in 
many  ways,  in  the  Word  of  God ;  and  if  it  had 
not  been  so  proved,  a  positive  denial  would  be 
equivalent  to  the  Doctor's  ajfirmation.  And  as 
the  Doctor  says,  "here,  since  this  conclusion  is 
irrefutable,  we  might  safely  close  the  argument'^ 
(p.  7),  we  reply,  as  our  denial  of  the  truth  of  the 
conclusion  is  a  sufficient  answer,  we  might  here 
fairly  close  the  review.  But  mere  affirmations  or 
denials  are  not  arguments,  and  they  always  leave 
the  question  in  discussion  unsettled. 

In  the  second  argument,  he  calls  attention  to 
"another  fact,"  which  he  regards  as  "  equally  sig- 
nificant with  the  preceding,  namely :  "  that  no 
two  of  the  prevailing  Paedo-Baptist  sects  can  agree 
as  to  their  reasons  for  infant  baptism,  the  class  of 
infants  to  whom  baptism  is  to  be  given,  or  the 
testimony  upon  which  rests  their  authority  for  ad- 
ministering the  ordinance  to  infants'^  (p.  7).  And 
what  of  that  ?  some  of  them  may  be  right,  and 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  17 


others  may  be  wrong,  and  he  has  not  proved  that 
all  are  wrong.  Others  may  be  right  as  far  as  they 
go,  and  yet  may  not  go  far  enough ',  and  he  has 
not  proved  that  these  are  wrong  as  far  as  they  go. 
Others  may  have  contributed  something  in  support 
of  infant  baptism,  and  he  has  not  proved  that  what 
these  have  contributed  is  exceptionable,  either  in 
a  rational  or  scriptural  sense.  Apply  his  rule  of 
logic,  and  lie  overturns  his  own  Church,  for  it  is 
divided  into  a  multitude  of  conflicting  sects  :  apply 
his  rule,  and  the  dogma  of  *^  close  communion"  is 
proved  to  be  "unsupported  by  the  Word  of  Grod," 
for  he  and  his  followers  differ  from  the  accom- 
plished Robert  Hall  and  his  followers,  in  "the 
terms  of  communion,"  as  may  be  plainly  seen  in 
his  own  treatise  which  he  has  written  on  this  sub- 
ject. But  this  is  not  all.  The  Doctor,  as  is  usual 
with  men  of  his  school,  shamefully  misrepresents 
the  Psedo-Baptist  authors  whom  he  arrays  against 
each  other  in  support  of  his  argument.  "For 
illustration,"  says  he,  "Wall  and  others  of  that 
school,  claim  that  Jewish  proselyte  baptism  is  the 
broad  and  ample  foundation  upon  which  it  [infant 
baptism]  rests"  (p.  7).  They  claim  no  such  thing. 
Wall  says,  "  Now  this  [proselyte  baptism]  gives 
great  light  for  the  better  understanding  of  the 
meaning  of  our  Saviour,  when  he  bids  his  apostles 
2* 


18  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


*Go  and  disciple  all  nations,  and  baptize  them'^' 
(Hist.  Inf.  Bap.,  vol.  1,  p.  21).  Again :  "  The 
baptism,  indeed,  of  the  nations  by  the  apostles 
ought  to  be  regulated  by  the  practice  of  John  and 
of  Christ  himself  (who  by  the  hands  of  his  disci- 
ples baptized  many  Jews),  rather  than  by  any 
preceding  custom  of  the  Jewish  nation,  if  we  had 
any  good  ground  to  believe  that  they  did  in  the 
case  of  infants  differ  or  alter  anything  from  the 
usual  way"  (Ibid.  p.  27).  Wall,  then,  presents  the 
great  commission,  and  the  practice  of  the  apostles, 
as  the  true  ground  of  infant  baptism.  Indeed, 
he  positively  affirms  that  the  New  Testament  fur- 
nishes authority  for  infant  baptism.  In  his  reply 
to  Gale,  he  says  :  "  Of  his  untruths,  I  would  be- 
forehand instance  in  one  flagrant  and  manifest 
one  (which,  as  I  shall  show,  he  has  affirmed  above 
twenty  times  over),  his  saying,  I  have  in  my  book 
yielded  and  owned,  that  there  is  no  Scripture 
proof  for  infant  baptism ;  though  near  half  his 
book  is  spent  in  refuting  (as  well  as  he  can)  those 
proofs  which  I  brought  from  Scripture"  (Ibid., 
vol.  4,  p.  66).  And  he  observes :  "  I  did  bring 
many  proofs  from  God's  Word,  which  stand  as  so 
many  evidences  of  the  falsehood  of  this  foul  charge 
against  me.  I  will  refer  to  the  places.''  And  he 
mentions  Matt.  28  :  19 ;  John  3  :  3,  5 ;  Col.  2  : 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  19 


11,  12 ;  Mark  10  :  13,  &c. ;  1  Cor.  7  :  14.  And 
he  continues  :  '^I  had  also,  long  before  Mr.  Gale 
wrote,  published  a  little  treatise  on  the  question 
of  infant  baptism,  wherein  I  insist  chiefly  and 
almost  only  on  Scripture  proof"  (Ibid.,  vol.  4,  pp. 
177,  178, 179.  It  is  questionable  whether  Doctor 
Howell  has  ever  read  Wall's  great  work,  "The 
History  of  Infant  Baptism,"  and  if  he  has,  it  is 
unquestionable,  that  he  did  not  do  it  with  candor. 
In  like  manner,  he  misrepresents  "Wesley  and 
his  disciples."  "  Wesley  and  his  disciples  insist 
that  children  are  unholy,  and  must  be  baptized  to 
cleanse  them  from  their  defilements"  (p.  7).  And 
do  not  Doctor  Howell  and  his  brethren  believe 
that  children  are  unholy  ?  So  far  they  agree  with 
"Wesley  and  his  disciples."  But  Mr.  Wesley  and 
his  disciples  insist  that  baptism,  in  the  case  of 
children,  is  typical  of  cleansing  from  their  defile- 
ments, and  positively  deny  that  baptism  is  regene- 
ration, either  in  the  case  of  infants  or  adults;  and 
so  far  the  Baptists  agree  with  them.  Now,  if 
these  opinions  of  Mr,  "  Y/esley  and  his  disciples" 
are  not  "supported  by  the  Word  of  Grod/'  then 
the  opinions  of  the  Baptists,  including  Doctor 
Howell  himself,  are  not  supported  by  the  Word 
of  God.  But  this  is  not  all.  Mr.  Wesley  has 
written  an  able  treatise  on  baptism,  in  which  he 


20  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


mentions  many  passages  of  Scripture  in  support  of 
infant  baptism.  Nor  is  this  all,  even  granting  — 
which  we  do  not  —  that  Mr.  Wesley  did  believe 
in  infant  baptismal  regeneration,  ^'  his  disciples/' 
as  the  Doctor  is  pleased  to  call  the  Methodists,  do 
not,  in  England  or  America,  believe  in  that  bap- 
tismal dogma,  as  the  Doctor  himself  must  know, 
and  so  he  is  reprehensible  for  the  groundless 
charge  above;  or  being  ignorant  of  their  true 
opinions  of  infant  baptism,  he  is  guilty  of  that  de- 
gree of  presumprion  which  ignorance  and  dogma- 
tism alone  can  originate  and  foster.  And  so  he 
misrepresents  other  evaugelical  divines.  For  in- 
stance, says  he,  "  Burder,  Dwight,  and  their  class, 
permit  no  other  infants  to  be  baptized,  but  those 
of  Christian  parents"  (p.  7).  Granted;  but  then 
they  permitted  these  to  be  baptized  because  they 
believed  infant  baptism  to  be  scriptural,  as  their 
works  abundantly  show.  He  continues  :  '^  Baxter, 
Henry,  and  those  of  similar  faith,  baptize  infants 
to  bring  them  into  the  Covenant  and  Church  of 
the  Redeemer"  (p.  7).  G-ranted  —  but  then  in  a 
sacramental  sense;  and  so  the  Doctor  baptizes 
adult  believers ;  and  both  have  scriptural  ground 
for  this,  to  say  nothing  of  mode.  Besides,  the 
Doctor,  on  the  27th  page  of  his  book,  presents  Mr. 
Henry  as  saying,  that  Acts  2  :  39,  "  the  promise 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  21 


is  unto  you  and  your  children/^  is  "the  chief 
Scripture  ground  for  infant  baptism.'^  What  in- 
fatuation, then,  is  it  to  attempt  to  prove  that  in- 
fant baptism  is  "unsupported  by  the  Word  of 
Grod/^  by  adducing  Pasdo-Baptists  who  argue  in 
support  of  infant  baptism  from  the  Word  of  God  ! 
The  issue  is  between  the  Doctor  and  his  Pasdo- 
Baptist  authors,  and  hence  before  he  can  prove 
that  infant  baptism  is  an  evil,  he  must  refute  the 
arguments  of  his  opponents.  But  he  continues : 
'•  Many,  however,  ingenuously  confess  that  they 
find  no  express  authority  for  it,  but  believe  the 
practice  in  consonance  with  Hhe  general  spirit 
of  religion,'  and  therefore  adopt  it.  Thus  contra- 
dictory and  suicidal  are  the  reasonings  of  Psedo- 
Baptists  on  this  subject"  (p.  8).  Very  well,  then, 
some  believe  the  practice  to  be  in  consonance  with 
the  Bible,  and  so  it  is  not  in  opposition  to  the 
Bible.  But  others  affirm  that  there  is  express 
authority  for  the  practice  in  the  Bible ;  and  the 
others  inferentially  from  the  Bible ;  and  so  both 
support  it  from  the  Bible.  The  "  reasonings  of 
Paedo-Baptists,"  therefore,  are  not  "contradictory 
and  suicidal  on  the  subject"  of  infant  baptism, 
any  more  than  positive  and  circumstantial  testi- 
mony can  be  "  contradictory  and  suicidal"  on  any 
subject. 


22  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


But  the  Doctor  has  another  argument,  "  if  pos- 
sible, still  more  conclusive,"  namely,  ^^  very  many 
of  the  most  learned  and  pious  biblical  critics,  them- 
selves Paedo-Baptists,  candidly  confess  that  the 
practice  of  infant  baptism  is  not  directly  enjoined 
in  the  Word  of  Grod"  (p.  9).  And  he  adduces 
Luther,  Calvin,  Burnett,  Hahn,  Schleirmacher, 
Lange,  Woods,  Stuart,  '^all  distinguished  di- 
vines," as  having  made  the  admission.  Granted, 
and  what  then?  Why  these  very  authors,  in  a 
most  elaborate  and  convincing  manner,  present 
arguments  of  an  inferential  and  circumstantial 
nature,  equivalent,  indeed,  to  a  positive  scriptural 
injunction;  and  the  Doctor,  himself,  will  not 
deny,  that  often  an  inferential  and  circumstantial 
argument  is  equivalent  to  'a  positive  demonstra- 
tion. And  when  the  circumstantial  arguments 
are  added  to  the  positive  scriptural  injunctions, 
adduced  by  other  Paedo-Baptist  authors,  the  prac- 
tice of  infant  baptism  is  supported  and  established 
by  the  mixed  and  harmonious  evidence  beyond  all 
refutation.  Indeed,  any  circumstance  or  fact  of 
ecclesiastical  history,  in  harmony  with  the  circum- 
stantial and  positive  arguments  drawn  from  Scrip- 
ture in  favor  of  infant  baptism,  must  contribute 
some  force  to  the  general  evidence.  Consequently, 
the  conclusion  of  the  Doctor  —  "the  New  Testa- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  23 


ment  is  therefore  given  up'^  (p.  9)  —  does  not 
follow,  because  one  class  of  supporters  of  infant 
baptism  argue  from  tbe  New  Testament  inferen- 
tially,  and  another  class  positively,  and  so  the 
New  Testament  is  made  the  ground  of  argumen- 
tation by  both  classes  of  Paedo-Baptists. 

His  reference  to  those  authors  who  support  in- 
fant baptism  from  the  Old  Testament  is  likewise 
unfortunate.  He  adduces  certain  "profound" 
writers  as  conceding  that  infant  baptism  cannot  be 
supported  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  he  men- 
tions Charnock,  Starck,  Augusti  and  Jeremy  Tay- 
lor, and  says,  that  "a,  hundred  similar"  witnesses 
"could,  if  it  were  necessary,  be  produced"  (p.  10). 
Granted;  but  these  very  authors,  all  of  them, 
defend  infant  baptism  upon  New  Testament 
ground  and  from  ecclesiastical  history,  and  so  the 
universal  conclusion  of  the  Doctor,  "the  whole 
Bible  is  relinquished,"  does  not  follow,  because  a 
universal  conclusion,  affirmative  or  negative,  in 
the  nature  of  things,  cannot  follow  from  a  particu- 
lar premise.  For  instance,  the  Doctor  cannot 
prove  baptism,  or  immersion,  if  you  choose,  from 
the  Old  Testament }  therefore  baptism  cannot  be 
proved  from  the  Bible,  and  so  "the  whole  Bible 
is  relinquished"  by  the  Baptists  in  defending  their 
opinions  of  baptism.     This  is  a  fair  application  of 


24  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


the  use  the  Doctor  makes  of  the  concessions  of 
certain  Psedo-Baptists,  and  to  his  mind  at  least 
must  prove  the  absurdity  of  his  conclusion  against 
infant  baptism.  But  this  is  not  all.  While  cer- 
tain Pasdo-Baptists  may  concede  that  infant  bap- 
tism cannot  be  supported  in  any  manner  from  the 
Old  Testament^  they  maintain  that  it  can  be  sup- 
ported and  established  directly  and  indirectly  from 
the  New  Testament;  and  directly  from  history; 
and  others  maintain  that  it  can  be  supported  ana- 
logically from  the  Old  Testament,  and  directly 
and  indirectly  from  the  New  Testament,  and  di- 
rectly from  history ;  and  so  both  classes  maintain 
the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism  from  the  Bible  and 
from  history.  "What,  is  not  the  New  Testament  a 
part,  yea,  the  chief  part  of  the  Bible  ?  And  thus 
a  doctrine  sustained  from  the  New  Testament  is 
as  well  established  as  if  it  were  supported  likewise 
by  every  chapter  in  the  Old  Testament.  But  this 
is  not  all.  The  Doctor,  in  the  first  case,  attempts 
to  prove  from  the  concessions  of  one  class  of  Paedo- 
Baptists  that  infant  baptism  is  not  expressly  en- 
joined in  the  New  Testament,  and  so  concludes 
that  the  New  Testament  is  to  be  abandoned.  But 
in  this  case  he  omits  the  analogical  arguments 
which  this  class  draw  from  the  Old  Testament,  as 
well   as   the  positive  and   inferential   arguments 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  25 


which  others  deduce  from  the  New  Testament,  in 
support  of  infant  baptism.  And  ia  the  second 
case  he  attempts  to  prove,  from  the  concessions 
of  another  class  of  Psedo-Baptists,  that  infant  bap- 
tism cannot  be  supported  from  the  Old  Testament, 
and  so  concludes  that  the  Old  Testament  is  to  be 
abandoned.  But  in  this  case  he  omits  the  posi- 
tive and  inferential  arguments  which  this  class 
deduce  from  the  New  Testament,  as  well  as  the 
analogical  arguments  which  others  draw  from  the 
Old  Testament.  That  is,  he  makes  the  analogy 
of  the  Old  Testament  invalidate  the  substance  of 
the  New,  and  the  positive  and  inferential  argu- 
ments drawn  from  the  New  Testament  invalidate 
the  analogical  arguments  drawn  from  the  Old, 
while  it  is  evident  that  analogy  can  never  offset  a 
positive  truth,  and  that  the  positive  and  inferen- 
tial arguments  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the 
analogical  arguments  from  the  Old  Testament, 
mutually  Support  and  strengthen  each  other,  and 
so  establish  the  general  argument  in  favor  of  in- 
fant baptism.  Analogy,  inference,  affirmation,  all 
being  in  harmony,  no  matter  by  whom  maintained, 
are  enough  to  establish  the  truth  of  any  doctrine. 
The  fair  and  logical  method  the  Doctor  should 
have  pursued  is  this.  One  class  of  his  opponents 
abandoning  the  Old  Testament  in  the  argument, 


26  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


but  maintaining  their  views  upon  inference  from 
the  New  Testament,  he  should  have  thrown  the 
Old  Testament  out  of  the  discussion  with  them, 
and  then  have  fairly  met  the  issue  of  inference 
from  the  New  Testament;  hut  while  he  has  done 
the  former,  he  has  not  attempted  the  latter,  but 
placed  the  silence  of  the  Old  Testament  against 
the  inference  from  the  New,  which  indeed  leaves 
the  inference  from  the  New  in  full  force.  Again, 
another  class  conceding  that  infant  baptism  is  not 
expressly  enjoined  in  the  New  Testament,  but 
maintaining  that  it  is  supported  by  inference  from 
the  New  Testament,  he  should  have  thrown  the 
concession  out  of  the  discussion  with  them,  and 
then  have  fairly  met  the  argument  from  inference ; 
but  he  has  perverted  the  concession  to  an  entire 
abandonment  of  the  New  Testament,  which  indeed 
still  leaves  the  argument  from  inference  in  full 
force.  Again,  one  class  of  his  opponents  conceding 
that  infant  baptism  is  not,  and  another  affirmiDg 
that  it  is,  expressly  enjoined  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment; he  might  have  fairly  placed  these  two 
classes,  on  the  particular  issue  of  positive  injunc- 
tion, against  each  other,  which  in  the  general  argu- 
ment is  immaterial ;  and  this  he  has  indeed  done, 
which  is  immaterial ;  but  he  has  boldly  gone  far- 
ther, and   placed   the   argument  from  inference 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  27 


against  the  argument  from  positive  injunction, 
when  he  should  have  proved  that  both  are  false, 
since  if  either  be  true,  infant  baptism  must  be 
cordially  admitted,  and  if  both  be  true,  infant  bap- 
tism is  firmly  established ;  and  so  indeed  he  leaves 
both  the  argument  from  inference,  and  from  posi- 
tive injunction,  in  full  force.  The  Doctor's  method 
is  a  novel  and  summary  one,  perfectly  consistent 
with  "  the  task  he  has  attempted  to  execute,^^  but 
it  is  as  illogical  as  it  is  novel,  and  inconclusive  as 
it  is  summary,  and  must  appear  so  to  any  candid 
and  intelligent  mind  of  "  the  million"  for  whom 
he  ^^  writes." 

But  the  Doctor  has  another  argument,  namely, 
"  infant  baptism  is  in  truth  actually  prohibited  by 
the  Word  of  God"  (p.  12).  His  argument  is  :  "  Is 
not  infant  baptism  directly  enjoined  in  the  "Word 
of  Grod  ?  It  confessedly  is  not.  Then  it  is  plainly 
prohibited."  And  this  he  attempts  to  support 
from  Scripture.  "  It  is  God  who  has  said  :  '  What 
thing  soever  I  command  you  observe  to  do  it. 
Thou  shalt  not  add  thereto  nor  diminish  from 
it.'  "  Stop  my  candid  reasoner  j  is  this  a  specific 
prohibition  of  infant  baptism  ?  This  command  is 
from  the  Old  Testament,  and  referred  to  the  regu- 
lation of  the  Jewish  government,  moral  and  cere- 
monial.    But  will  the  Doctor  maintain  that  this 


28  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


command  enjoins  observance  of  the  old  Jewish 
ceremonial  law  now?  Certainly  not;  then  the 
supreme  Law-giver  himself  has  annulled  this  in- 
junction so  far  as  it  once  referred  to  ceremonial 
obedience.  And  it  remains  for  the  Doctor  to 
prove  that  God  has  not  enjoined  infant  baptism  in 
the  New  Testament,  which,  we  affirm,  he  has  done. 
And  just  here  it  is  worthy  of  observation^  that  as 
God  associated  infants  with  the  Jewish  church, 
and  in  the  above  ^^  command"  enjoined  that  their 
right  be  "  observed,"  in  circumcision,  the  formal 
seal  of  association  with  his  church,  under  the 
Jewish  dispensation ;  and  as  he  has  not  excluded 
infants  from  his  church,  the  above  "  command" 
still  enjoins  that  this  right  be  observed  in  baptism, 
the  formal  seal  of  association  with  his  church, 
under  the  Christian  dispensation.  And  so  in  fact, 
the  very  Scripture  the  Doctor  adduces  against  in- 
fant baptism,  is  a  strong  vindication  of  the  doc- 
trine. So  much  for  the  first  consideration  of  the 
Doctor.     And  he  has  a  second. 

^^  Infant  baptism  is  prohibited  by  a  second  con- 
sideration, the  apostolic  commission  —  '■  Go  ye 
into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature.  He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized, 
shall  be  saved.'  This  law  is  plain  and  definite. 
Every  positive  has  its  negative.     A  law  to  baptize 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  29 


believers  necessarily  prohibits  the  baptism  of  all 
others  than  believers.  Infants  are  not  believers. 
Therefore  the  law  prohibits  the  baptism  of  infants" 
Cpp.  12,  13).  This  argument  of  the  Doctor  is  fal- 
iMcious  for  three  reasons.  First,  it  is  a  particular 
proposition,  referring  only  to  the  believer.  But 
infants  cannot  believe,  therefore  it  does  not  refer 
to  them,  and  so  cannot  prohibit  baptism  in  their 
case.  Secondly,  his  argument  proves  too  much, 
and  so  falls  to  the  ground.  Thus  :  "  every  posi- 
tive has  its  negative."  Very  well.  Infants  can- 
not believe,  therefore  should  not  be  baptized  — 
this  is  one  "  negative."  Infants  cannot  believe, 
therefore  should  not  be  saved  —  this  is  another 
'^  negative."  One  negative  is  as  legitimate  as  the 
other,  and  to  admit  the  one  is  to  establish  the 
other,  and  so  the  Doctor's  prohibition  involves  the 
damnation  of  infants !  But  it  may  be  replied, 
"  infants  are  saved  without  faith  "  —  granted,  and 
for  that  very  reason  they  should  be  baptized  with- 
out faith.  Thus,  the  "apostolic  commission''  re- 
fers neither  positively  nor  negatively  to  infants, 
and  so  is  not  a  prohibition  of  infant  baptism. 
Thirdly,  the  Doctor  gives  an  improper  analysis  of 
the  commission.  Faith  and  baptism  are  made  the 
condition  of  salvation,  not  faith  the  condition  of 
baptism ;  and  thus,  as  faith,  one  part  of  the  con- 
3* 


30  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


dition  is  dispensed  with  in  the  ease  of  infants,  so 
baptism,  the  other  part  of  the  condition,  is  dis- 
pensed with,  in  order  to  their  salvation.  Faith 
alone  secures  present  salvation  in  the  adult,  and 
baptism  then  is  required  of  him  as  expressive  of 
his  faith,  renunciation  of  the  world,  and  consecra- 
tion to  God  forever.  But  infants  are  already  in  a 
state  of  justification,  which  baptism  signifies,  im- 
plying their  consecration  to  God,  and,  in  due 
time,  their  obligation  to  serve  him.  Now,  unless 
the  Doctor  can  prove  that  infants  are  not  in  a 
state  of  justification,  he  cannot  bring  the  "  com- 
mission'^ against  infant  baptism. 

The  Doctor  continues:  "The  baptism  of  in- 
fants is  prohibited,  thirdly,  by  the  nature  and  de- 
sign of  baptism  itself.  In  this  ordinance  you  pub- 
licly profess  your  faith  in  Christ,  and  devote 
yourself  to  him  in  his  visible  church.  This  must 
be  an  intelligent  and  voluntary  act  on  the  part  of 
every  one  who  is  baptized.  To  those  who  cannot 
so  act  baptism  is  prohibited.  Infants  cannot  so 
act.  Therefore  the  baptism  of  infants  is  pro- 
hibited" (pp.  13,  14).  The  Doctor  will  not  deny 
that  the  infant  in  circumcision  was  "devoted"  to 
God  "in  his  visible  church"  —  yet  he  professed 
no  faith  in  God,  and  was  unable  to  perform  any 
"intelligent  and  voluntary  act"  in  the  premises. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  31 


But  apply  the  premises  of  the  Doctor  in  another 
respect.  Faith  is  "  an  intelligent  and  voluntary 
act  on  the  part  of  every  one  who  is'^  saved.  "  To 
those  who  cannot  so  act'^  salvation  '4s  prohibited." 
Infants  cannot  so  act.  Therefore  the  "  salvation'' 
of  infants  is  prohibited.  Premises  so  fatal  to  the 
salvation  of  infants  cannot  be  logical  or  scriptural 
when  employed  against  their  baptism.  But  the 
salvation  of  infants  cannot  be  forfeited  by  any 
blunders  of  the  Doctor's  logic,  and  their  right  to 
baptism  cannot  be  disproved  by  his  strongest  argu- 
ments. It  is  surprising  with  what  coolness  and 
boldness  he  exclaims,  "  it  is  now  proved  indubita- 
bly that  infant  baptism  is  prohibited. '^  And  we 
reply,  upon  his  principle  of  reasoning,  "  it  is"  also 
"proved  indubitably  that  infant"  salvation  *'is 
prohibited."  And  so  all  his  conclusions  to  the 
end  of  the  chapter  may  be  retorted  upon  bim.  As 
'■'infant  baptism  is  in  truth  no  baptism  at  all" 
(p.  14)  —  infant  salvation  is  in  truth  no  salvation 
at  all :  "  infant  baptism  is  a  bold  attempt  to  per- 
fect that  which  it  is  vainly  imagined  God  has  left 
deficient"  (p.  16)  —  infant  salvation  is  a  bold 
attempt  to  perfect  that  which  it  is  vainly  imagined 
God  has  left  deficient:  "infant  baptism  is  a  sin 
against  God''  (p.  16)  —  infant  salvation  is  a  sin 
against  God :  "  thus  is  infant  baptism  incontro- 


32  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


vertiblj  proved  to  be  an  evil"  (p.  16)  —  thus  is 
infant  salvation  incontrovertibly  proved  to  be  an 
evil.  And  so  his  earnest  deprecation  of  infant 
baptism  —  "  from  my  heart  I  deprecate  it  in  all 
its  bearings'^  —  might  just  as  rationally  have  been 
uttered  against  infant  salvation,  for  his  reasons 
are  just  as  strong  against  the  one  as  the  other, 
and  so  it  seems  at  last  that  the  Doctor's  logic 
originated  in  his  heart  and  not  in  his  head — and 
thus  with  a  warm  heart  no  doubt  the  Doctor 
"  writes  for  the  million/'  for  in  right  good  earnest 
he  exhorts,  entreats,  interrogates,  and  warns  them 
to  the  last  words  in  the  chapter. 

II.  The  second  general  argument  of  the  Doctor 
is  —  "  Infant  baptism  is  an  evil,  because  its  de- 
fence LEADS  TO  THE  MOST  INJURIOUS  PERVER- 
SIONS OF  THE  Word  of  God''  (p.  18).  He  knows 
^'no  better  plan"  to  prove  this  proposition  than  by 
^'  examples,"  and  ^'  these  are  so  numerous  that  he 
knows  not  where  to  begin."  His  first  ^^  example" 
is  the  perversion  of  the  true  meaning  of  the  apos- 
tolic commission ;  but  the  very  ground  on  which 
he  proves  the  teachings  of  Paedo-Baptists  a  perver- 
sion, if  admitted,  would  prove  the  salvation  of  in- 
fants absolutely  impossible.  But  even  admitting 
(which  we  do  not)  that  some  Paedo-Baptists  per- 
vert the  meaning  of  the  great  commission   "to 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  S3 


defend  infant  baptism/'  it  does  not  follow  that 
infant  baptism  is  an  evil,  or  naay  not  be  defended 
by  otber  Scriptures^  or  be  proved  by  otlier  Pasdo- 
Baptists,  from  the  great  commission  itself.  Be- 
sides, many  of  "  the  million'^  may  not  regard  the 
Doctor's  judgment  of  the  Psedo-Baptist  interpre- 
tations as  sound,  and  so  these  interpretations  may 
not  turn  out,  in  their  minds,  to  be  ^'^perversions." 
But  that  interpretation  of  the  commission,  which 
involves  the  denial  of  the  right  of  infants  to  sal- 
vation, is,  beyond  all  doubt,  a  perversion  the  most 
repulsive;  and  such  is  the  Doctor's  interpretation: 
opposition  to  infant  baptism,  then,  is  an  evil. 
But  the  Doctor  adopts  a  singular  way  to  make  out 
his  case  of  perversions.  "  When  great  and  good 
men,  such  as  these,  and  the  thousands  of  others 
who  agree  with  them,  thus  interpret  the  commis- 
sion, can  we  believe  that  they  are  really  in  ear- 
nest? Do  they  not  know  better?"  (p.  21.)  That 
is,  the  Doctor  supposes  that  the  Paedo-Baptists  do 
not  conscientiously  believe  what  they  write  and 
avow,  and  so  they  knowingly  and  willingly  per- 
vert the  Word  of  Grod.  This  is  a  grave  insinua- 
tion, and  one  cannot  believe  that  the  Doctor  him- 
self is  "in  earnest"  when  he  makes  it,  without 
believing  that  he  has  more  confidence  in  his  own 
judgment,  than  charity  in  his  heart.     But  the 


34  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


Pagdo-Baptists  are  in  good  earnest ;  therefore  tliey 
do  not  pervert  the  Word  of  God  —  and  so  infant 
baptism  is  not  an  evil  —  the  Doctor,  himself,  being 
judge. 

The  second  example  the  Doctor  cites,  is  the 
"striking  instance,  ^The  promise  is  to  you  and 
to  your  children/  "  The  argument  of  the  Doctor 
is,  that  Peter  referred  to  the  prophecy  of  Joel, 
and  that  Joel  referred  to  "  sons  and  daughters," 
or,  in  general  terms,  "  posterity"  (p.  24).  If  the 
Doctor  can  prove  that  children  are  not  "  sons  and 
daughters"  or  "posterity,"  then  I  grant  infant 
baptism  cannot  be  supported  from  this  text.  But 
he  perverts  both  the  meaning  of  Peter  and  Joel, 
as  any  one  acquainted  with  what  they  say  on  the 
subject  must  know. 

Besides,  the  fearful  canon  of  the  Doctor,  "every 
positive  has  a  negative,"  is  here  again  levelled  with 
fatal  precision  against  the  salvation  of  infants.  If 
infants  are  not  included  in  "  the  promise,"  then 
they  are  lost.  But  they  are  included  in  the  pro- 
mise ;  therefore,  they  have  as  good  a  right  to  bap- 
tism, the  sacramental  seal  of  "the  promise,^' 
under  the  Christian  dispensation,  as  the  adult 
believing  Jews  had  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  The 
only  plausible  argument  the  Doctor  uses  is, 
"  babes  could  not  fulfil  the  conditions  upon  which 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  35 


the  promise  was  made''  (p.  26).  But  this  is  the 
old  stereotyped  sophism  of  the  Baptists,  and  its 
refutation  is  stamped  a  thousand  times  upon  the 
pages  of  the  baptismal  controversy,  and  may  be 
here  repeated.  If  "babes'^  cannot  "fulfil  the 
conditions''  of  the  promise,  and  for  that  reason 
should  not  be  baptized,  then  they  have  no  right  to 
the  blessings  of  "the  promise"  or  covenant  of 
salvation,  and  so  all  dying  in  infancy  must  be 
lost.  But,  if  they  are  included  in  "  the  promise" 
unconditionally,  then,  they  have  as  good  a  right 
to  baptism  unconditionally,  as  adults  have  condi- 
tionally. The  Doctor  denies  that  "  the  promise" 
here  means  the  covenant  of  salvation,  formally 
made  with  Abraham  (p.  28),  and  we  have  only  to 
reply,  then  all  children,  dying  in  infancy,  are 
lost  —  such  is  his  perversion  of  Peter's  meaning. 
The  Doctor's  theology  is  as  defective  as  his  logic 
in  another  respect.  It  never  has  been  assumed 
by  Paedo-Baptists,  that  "  the  G-ospel  is  a  new  dis- 
pensation of  the  covenant  of  circumcision"  (p.  28). 
The  Gospel  is  not  a  new  dispensation  of  the  cove- 
nant of  circumcision,  but  a  new  dispensation  of 
the  same  great  covenant  of  salvation,  of  which  cir- 
cumcision was  the  sensible,  formal  seal  under  the 
Jewish  dispensation.  The  Doctor  does  not  dis- 
criminate between  the  covenant  of  salvation,  which 


36  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


is  one  and  the  same  in  all  ages  of  time,  and  tbe 
dispensations  of  the  covenant,  which  are  many, 
and  follow  in  succession  at  various  periods  of  time. 
And  failing  to  make  this  discrimination,  it  is  not 
surprising  that  he  should  not  only  misrepresent 
his  Pasdo-Baptist  authorities,  but  pervert  also  the 
language  of  prophets  and  apostles.  The  same 
method  of  misrepresentation  and  perversion  the 
Doctor  pursues  to  the  end  of  the  chapter.  And 
this  is  the  more  surprising,  as  he  had  said,  page 
9,  that  '^  very  many  of  the  most  learned  and  pious 
biblical  critics,  themselves  P^edo-Baptists,  candidly 
confess  that  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  is  not 
directly  enjoined  in  the  Word  of  God;"  whereas, 
in  this  chapter,  he  joins  issue  with  many  others 
who  claim  several  Scriptures,  as  '^  chief  Scripture 
ground,"  and  "best  supports,"  of  infant  baptism. 
Nor  is  this  all.  He  has  omitted  some  of  the 
strongest  and  clearest  expositions  of  the  very 
Scriptures  examined  by  him,  and  these  may  not 
be  perversions  —  what  then  ?  Nor  is  this  all. 
He  has  perverted  the  meaning  of  the  authors  ad- 
duced. And  so  infant  baptism  cannot  be  proved 
to  be  an  evil  from  the  Doctor's  perversions,  both 
of  his  authors  and  the  Scriptures.  One  can 
scarcely  help  smiling  at  the  Doctor's  expression 
of  pious  regret.     "Thus  to  expose  the. errors  of 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  37 


our  Paedo-Baptist  brethren  gives  me  no  pleasure 
—  but  afflicts  me  profoundly.  The  task  falls  upon 
me.  It  shall  be  faithfully  performed"  (p.  29). 
The  great  Head  of  the  Church,  then,  has  been 
late  in  raising  up  and  qualifying  the  proper  man 
to  perform  this  impo  tant  task,  especially  since  so 
many  "pious,''  and  "learned,"  and  "profound 
biblical  critics  and  scholars,"  have  preceded  this 
champion  for  the  truth,  and  still  surround  him, 
and  smile  on  his  presumption,  egotism  and  vanity. 
We  will  give  the  candid  reader  one  example  of 
the  Doctor's  perversions  of  his  Paedo-Baptist  au- 
thorities. "  You  mean  that  holiness  is  spiritual, 
that  it  is  '  ecclesiastical,'  and  more,  you  mean  that 
this  holiness  is  produced  by  hereditary  transmis- 
sion," &c.  (pp.  37,  38.)  Now  we  challenge  the 
Doctor  to  produce  any  authority  in  the  Protestant 
or  Bomish  church  by  whom  this  charge  can  be 
sustained.  It  never  has  been  assumed,  by  Protes- 
tant or  Roman  Catholic,  that  children  are  born 
spiritual  or  holy.  So  far  from  it,  the  Boman 
Catholic  church,  and  the  High  Church  party  in 
the  Church  of  England,  baptize  children  to  make 
them  spiritual  or  holy,  which  is  absurd  in  itself, 
and  would  be  still  more  absurd,  if  they  baptized 
children  to  make  them  holy,  believing  at  the  time 
that  they  are  already  holy.  Heretics  themselves 
4 


38  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


then  deny  the  charge  of  the  Doctor,  and  this 
should  cover  him  with  confusion.  The  Doctor 
writes  for  "  the  million/'  but  what,  after  this,  can 
we  fairly  suppose  are  his  motives,  but  that  he  may 
deceive  the  ignorant,  impose  upon  the  credulous, 
;and  make  proselytes?  And  surely,  ignorance, 
•  credulity,  and  proselytism,  are  no  proofs  of  the 
.evils  of  infant  baptism,  unless,  to  argue  as  the 
Doctor  does,  infant  baptism  suggested  in  him  these 
motives. 

III.  The  third  general  argument  of  the  Doctor 
is,  "Infant  baptism  is  an  evil,  because  it  en- 
grafts JUDAISM  UPON  THE  GOSPEL  OF  ChRIST" 
(p.  40).  Under  this  proposition  the  Doctor  dis- 
plays more  ignorance  of  his  authorities,  of  the 
Scriptures,  of  common  sense,  and  of  the  plainest 
rules  of  reasoning,  than  we  have  been  able  to  ex- 
pose in  the  preceding  pages  ',  and  "  if  the  blind 
be  a  leader  of  the  blind,  they  will  both  fall  into 
ihe  ditch.''  God  save  "the  million."  His  argu- 
ment is  this :  the  Paedo-Baptists  assume  that  cir- 
cumcision and  baptism  "are  substantially  the 
same  ordinance,"  and  therefore  infant  baptism  is 
"the  sum  and  essence  of  Judaism"  (p.  41).  And 
he  says,  this  is  what  "  our  brethren  are  pleased  to 
call"  the  argument  from  "  analogy"  (p.  40).  It 
never  has  been  assumed  that  baptism  is  "  substan- 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  39 


tially,"  or  circumstantially,  the  same,  in  all  re- 
spects, with  circumcision,  and  therefore  it  cannot 
be  "  the  sum  and  essence  of  Judaism."  Baptism 
has  the  same  spiritual  meaning  with  circumcision, 
as  a  sign  and  seal,  and  is  due  to  infants,  and  in 
these  respects  only  is  it  substantially  the  same 
with  circumcision,  and  of  the  •'  same  essence  with 
Judaism"  —  and  the  Doctor  himself  will  not  deny 
that  Judaism  vitally,  in  many  respects,  was  spi- 
ritual—  unless  he  deny  that  Grod  was  its  author, 
or  that  he  instituted  a  system  of  rites  and  ceremo- 
nies, commands  and  precepts,  that  had  no  spiritual 
meaning  in  them.  Circumcision  had  both  a  secu- 
lar and  spiritual  meaning,  which  distinction  the 
Doctor  fails  to  make,  and  so  unavoidably  must 
impose  upon  the  ignorance  of  his  readers.  Thus : 
'^  What  is  Judaism  ?  It  is  the  intermingling,  or 
the  amalgamation,  of  the  doctrines,  rites,  and  wor- 
ship of  the  Jews,  with  the  doctrines,  rites,  and 
worship  of  Christianity.  Infant  baptism  is  amal- 
gamated Judaism  and  Christianity"  (pp.  41,  42). 
But  has  this  been  done  by  the  evangelical 
churches,  in  the  case  of  infant  baptism  ?  It  has 
not  been  done.  Has  anything  but  what  was  truly 
evangelical  in  Judaism  been  incorporated  in  the 
evangelical  churches  ?  It  has  not  been  done.  The 
Doctor  might  just  as  well  have  accused  Christ  and 


40  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


his  apostles  of  amalgamating  what  they  separated 
from  Judaism,  and  abolished,  with  what  they 
added  and  enjoined  as  evangelical  under  the 
Christian  dispensation.  The  spiritual  meaning 
of  the  passover  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  Is  it  therefore  the  "  sum  and  essence  of 
Judaism  ?"  or  "  amalgamated  Judaism  and  Chris- 
tianity r"^  The  spiritual  meaning  of  the  lamb  that 
bled  on  the  Jewish  altar,  and  of  the  intercession 
of  the  high  priest  in  the  holy  of  holies,  is  the  same 
as  that  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  ''  Lamb  of  Grod,"  and 
of  the  intercession  of  the  Son  of  God.  Is  the 
sacrifice  of  the  Lamb  of  God,  or  the  intercession 
of  the  Son  of  God,  therefore  the  "  sum  and  essence 
of  Judaism  ?"  In  a  word,  the  spiritual  meaning 
of  "the  doctrines,  rites,  and  worship  of  tbe  Jews,^' 
is  the  same  with  that  of  the  doctrines,  rites,  and 
worship  of  Christianity.  Are  the  doctrines,  rites, 
and  worship  of  Christianity  the  "  sum  and  essence 
of  Judaism  ?''  So  the  spiritual  meaning  of  cir- 
cumcision is  the  same  as  that  of  infant  baptism. 
Is  infant  baptism  therefore  the  "amalgamation 
of  Judaism  and  Christianity  V  The  Doctor  must 
assume  that  circumcision  had  no  spiritual  meaning 
—  and  then  Paul  was  wrong  when  he  said,  "  cir- 
cumcision verily  profiteth  if  thou  keep  the  law  — 
and  circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit, 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  41 


and  not  in  the  letter,  whose  praise  is  not  of  men, 
but  of  God ;"  or  he  must  admit  that  the  spiritual 
meaning  of  circumcision  is  the  same  with  that  of 
infant  baptism,  since  the  spiritual  meaning  of  cir- 
cumcision is  seen  in  the  ''profit"  of  keeping  the 
law  in  subsequent  life,  and  felt  in  the  "  heart"  and 
^^  spirit"  of  the  Jew  who  subsequently  believed, 
according  to  the  light  of  the  Jewish  dispensation. 
The  Doctor  must  admit  that  "  the  doctrines,  rites, 
and  worship"  of  Judaism  had  a  spiritual  meaning, 
or  the  Jews  believed  and  practised  "the  doc- 
trines," observed  the  "  rites,"  and  conformed  to 
the  "worship"  of  Judaism  in  vain,  and  so  were 
all  lost.  "  And  the  Scripture,  foreseeing  that  God 
would  justify  the  heathen  through  faith,  preached 
before  the  gospel  unto  Abraham,  saying.  In  thee 
shall  all  nations  be  blessed"  (Gal.  3  :  8).  This 
destroys  the  Doctor's  whole  argument,  in  the 
^'  aggregate,"  and  in  its  "  details." 

We  shall  now  examine  some  of  the  conclusions 
of  the  Doctor,  and  they  will  be  found  as  absurd  as 
his  premises.  The  Episcopalian  perceives  "  in  the 
Jewish  church  three  orders  of  the  ministry  — 
there  are  therefore  three  orders  in  the  ministry  in 
the  Christian  church"  (pp.  43,  44).  But  the 
Methodists,  Presbyterians,  and  the  Baptists  them- 
selves reject  the  dogma.  Besides  some  Episcopa- 
4* 


42  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


Hans  maintain  that  three  orders  in  the  ministry 
are  proved  from  the  New  Testament.  Again, 
other  Episcopalians  maintain,  and  truly,  that  but 
two  orders  in  the  ministry  can  be  proved  from  the 
New  Testament,  and  so  the  Doctor's  conclusion  is 
his  own,  and  does  not  touch  the  question  of  infant 
baptism. 

Again,  the  Doctor  argues  that  the  Roman 
Catholic  deduces  the  office  of  ^'  pope"  from  that 
of  "  the  great  high  priest"  in  the  Jewish  church 
(p. 45).  What  of  that?  We  all  reject  the  dogma. 
Besides,  the  Roman  Catholic  maintains  that  the 
office  of  pope  is  derived  by  "regular  succession 
from  St.  Peter,"  and  hence  originated  in  St. 
Peter,  and  not  in  the  office  of  the  Jewish  high 
priest,  and  this  also  we  reject. 

In  a  word,  the  Doctor  employs  the  most  per- 
nicious perversions  in  certain  cases  to  make  out  a 
specific  case  of  perversion  in  infant  baptism,  while 
there  is  not  the  remotest  connection  or  analogy  in 
the  cases.  The  absurdity  of  this  method  may  be 
shown  by  the  examination  of  some  of  the  perver- 
sions he  adduces.  **  The  Jewish  church  was  a 
national  church,  and  the  Christian  church  is  the 
same  church.  Therefore  the  Christian  church 
must  be  a  national  church"  (p.  45).  But  Christ 
abolished  the  nationality  of  the  Jewish  church, 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  43 


since  the  Christian  church  is  to  embrace  "  all  na- 
tions.'^ And  so  "  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  will 
probably  be  agreeable.  You  have  it  in  the  Jewish 
sacrifices'^  (p.  45).  But  Christ  consummated  the 
"  Jewish  sacrifices"  in  his  own  sacrifice,  and  so 
abolished  Jewish  sacrifices  forever.  "  You  want 
seventy  cardinals  ?  The  seventy  elders  who  com- 
posed the  Jewish  council  will  supply  you"  (p.  45). 
But  the  ecclesiastical  economy  of  the  Jewish 
church  was  abolished  by  the  death  of  Christ,  since 
its  work  was  now  accomplished,  and  the  ecclesias- 
tical government  of  the  Christian  church  is  to  be 
framed  according  to  the  principles  and  spirit  of 
the  New  Testament.  And  so  of  all  the  rest  of  the 
Doctor's  ridiculous  irony.  And  for  once  we  agree 
with  the  Doctor,  that  such  arguments  are  "  really 
available  for  papists,  and  for  papists  only"  (p.  43). 
To  make  out  an  analogous  case,  the  Doctor  must 
prove  that  the  Psedo-Baptist  churches  now  prac- 
tise circumcision.  This  they  do  not.  The  Doctor 
says,  '^  Essays  to  engraft  Judaism  upon  the  gospel 
of  Christ  commenced  immediately  after  the  ascen- 
sion of  our  Redeemer.  The  Judaism  then  preached 
was  precisely  such  as  our  Paedo-Baptist  brethren 
claim  as  legitimate  in  religion.  It  did  not  indeed 
include  infant  baptism,  but  advocated  instead 
literal  circumcision''  (p.  47).     This  was  Judaism 


44  INFANT     B  APT  IS 


engrafted  upon  Christianity.  But  this  was  repu- 
diated by  the  apostles  themselves,  and  has  been  by 
the  Christian  church  in  all  ages,  as  the  Doctor 
himself  knows,  and  himself  proves  on  pages  48, 
49,  50,  51  and  52,  of  his  own  book.  In  the  name 
of  common  sense,  reason  and  Scripture,  how  then 
can  infant  baptism  be  "  amalgamated  Judaism  and 
Christianity  V 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  Doctor  himself,  unac- 
countable as  it  may  appear,  admits  that  there  is  an 
analogy  between  the  Jewish  and  Christian  church. 
"  There  is  a  beautiful  analogy.  The  Jewish  church 
was  a  figure,  a  shadow,  a  type,  of  the  Christian 
church"  (pp.  53,  54).  And  he  quotes  from  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews :  "  The  holy  places  made 
with  hands  were  figures  of  the  true  holy  places"  — 
and  adds :  ^'  All  the  parts  of  the  Jewish  church 
and  worship  were  figures  of  the  Christian  church 
and  worship.  What  is  true  of  all  the  parts  is  true 
of  the  whole.  The  whole  Jewish  church  there- 
fore was  a  figure  or  type  of  the  Christian  church" 
(p.  54).  That  is  fair  for  once.  This  is  all  we 
maintain.  And  so  Webster,  his  authority,  gives 
our  view  of  the  analogy  we  maintain  :  "  an  agree- 
ment or  likeness  between  things  in  some  circum- 
stances and  efiects,  when  the  things  are  otherwise 
entirely  diflerent'^  (p.  53).     That  is,  circumcision 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  45 


and  infant  baptism  agree  and  resemble  each  otter 
in  "  some  circumstances  and  effects/'  while  they 
are  "  otherwise  entirely  different."  As  follows  : 
they  both  are  formal,  sensible  signs  and  seals  of 
the  same  covenant  of  grace,  though  practised 
under  different  dispensations.  They  both  have  a 
spiritual  meaning,  though  one  had  also  a  secular 
meaning,  which  the  other  has  not  under  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation.  They  both  imposed  obligation 
to  keep  the  moral  and  evangelical  law  of  God,  in 
all  subsequent  life,  though  the  former  imposed 
also  obligation  to  keep  the  ceremonial  law,  under 
the  Jewish  dispensation,  which  is  abolished  under 
the  Christian  dispensation.  They  both  formally 
and  sensibly  recognise  those  who  are  entitled  to 
association  with  the  church  of  God,  though  the 
former  also  recognised  those  who  were  the  subjects 
of  God  in  a  civil  sense,  which  civil  sense  is  not 
contained  in  baptism,  since  the  civil  polity  of  the 
Jewish  church  is  abolished  under  the  Christian 
dispensation.  They. both  have  a  sacramental  mean- 
ing,- though  they  both  are  "entirely  different 
things"  in  essential  nature,  and  form,  and  mode, 
and  natural  effects.  So  much  for  Mr.  Webster. 
And  so  the  Doctor's  "  Hermeneutics"  are  against 
him.  "No  external  institution  or  fact  in  the  Old 
Testament  is  a  type  of  an  external  institution  or 


46  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


fact  in  the  New  Testament.  External  institutions 
and  facts  in  the  Old  Testament  are  invariable 
types  of  internal  and  spiritual  institutions  and 
facts  in  the  New  Testament^'  (p.  55).  Granted, 
most  cordially.  Then  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper  now  set  forth  ^^  internally  and  spiritually" 
what  circumcision  and  the  passover  set  forth 
^'  externally''  in  the  Old  Testament.  But  this  is 
not  all.  The  Doctor  himself  specifies  certain 
analogies  between  circumcision  and  baptism.  "A 
correspondence  exists  in  several  respects  between 
circumcision  and  baptism.  By  circumcision  the 
natural  seed  were  recognised  as  the  children  of 
Abraham,  and  received  as  members  of  the  Jewish 
church ;  by  baptism  the  spiritual  seed  are  recog- 
nised as  believers  in  Christ,  and  received  as  mem- 
bers of  the  Christian  church.  Circumcision  was 
instituted  expressly  for  literal  infants,  and  it  was 
commanded  to  be  administered  to  them  as  soon  as 
they  were  born ;  baptism  was  instituted  expressly 
for  spiritual  infants  —  believers  in  Christ  —  and 
it  was  commanded  to  be  administered  to  them  as 
soon  as  they  were  born  again.  Circumcision  was 
an  essential  preliminary  to  the  Passover;  baptism  is 
an  essential  preliminary  to  the  Lord's  Supper" 
(p.  59).  This  contains  in  substance,  as  far  as  it 
goes,  all  we  maintain.     Circumcision  was  adminis- 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  47 


tered  to  infants,  "literal  infants,"  the  "natural 
seed"  of  Abraham  —  granted  —  but  it  had  a  spi- 
ritual meaning  at  the  same  time,  recognising  the 
infant  as  being  already  a  member  of  the  spiritual 
church;  so  that  if  he  in  subsequent  life  committed 
a  sin  or  "  trespass,"  unless  he  repented,  that  is, 
conformed  with  the  proper  spirit  to  the  specific 
requisitions  of  the  law,  he  was  to  be  "  cut  off  from 
the  congregation,"  or  church  of  God,  under  the 
Jewish  dispensation,  which  was  the  mournful 
case  in  many  individual  and  collective  instances. 
"Baptism  was  instituted  expressly  for  spiritual 
infants:"  that  is,  "believers  in  Christ"  —  granted 
—  but  then  it  is  more:  it  is  due  to  those  who 
have  a  right  to  spiritual  regeneration,  and  such 
are  all  infants — first,  those  dying  in  infancy,  and 
secondly,  those  living  and  conforming  to  the  spe- 
cific requisitions  of  the  gospel ;  as  in  the  case  of 
all  infants  under  the  Jewish  dispensation — first,  all 
dying  in  infancy,  and  secondly,  those  living  and 
conforming  to  the  specific  requisitions  of  the  moral 
and  ceremonial  law.  The  Doctor  cannot  deny  this 
conclusion,  without  disproving  that  circumcision 
imposed  spiritual  and  moral  obligations  as  well  as 
civil.  "  Circumcision  was  an  essential  preliminary 
to  the  passover"  —  granted  —  but  it  was  adminis- 
tered to  infants ;  and  infants,  when  they  grew  up, 


48  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


if  they  committed  sin  or  trespass,  forfeited  right 
to  the  passover  till  they  repeated  as  above;  so 
infants,  unless  they  repent  in  the  gospel  sense, 
have  no  right  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Let  us  return  for  a  moment  to  the  Doctor's 
"  Hermeneutics."  We  give  his  own  quotation 
from  Turretine,  "  the  distinguished  successor  of 
Calvin.'^  ^^  A  sacrament  is  an  external  thing,  and 
whatever  is  a  type  of  any  internal  or  spiritual 
thing  has  no  need  of  any  other  type  by  which  it 
may  be  represented.  Two  types  may  indeed  be 
given,  similar  and  corresponding  to  each  other,  of 
one  and  the  same  truth,  and  so  far  the  ancient  sa- 
craments were  antitypes  of  ours ;  '  but  one  type 
cannot  be  shadowed  forth  by  another  type,'  since 
both  are  brought  forward  to  represent  one  truth. 
So  circumstances  shadowed  forth  not  baptism,  but 
the  grace  of  regeneration ;  and  the  passover  repre- 
sented not  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  Christ  set  forth 
in  the  Supper"  (p.  55).  Very  well;  then  cir- 
cumcision and  the  passover  had  a  spiritual  mean- 
ing, which  is  all  we  maintain ;  and  the  analogy 
between  the  Jewish  and  Christian  sacraments  is 
established  so  far  as  their  spiritual  meaning  is 
concerned ;  and  so  of  all  the  "  doctrines,  rites  and 
worship"  of  the  Jewish  church.  And  in  the 
language  of  the  Doctor,  we  observe,  ^'the  whole 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  49 


subject  of  analogy  is  therefore  perfectly  plain" 
(p.  58) 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  Doctor  admits  "  there 
is  a  beautiful  analogy,''  but  affirms  that  "  the 
identity  assumed  is  nothing  more  or  less  than 
naked  Judaism"  (p.  53).  All  we  maintain  is, 
that  the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches  are  spi- 
ritual as  well  as  external  parts  of  the  same  church 
of  God,  and  therefore  in  a  spiritual  nature  they 
are  identically  the  same,  however  they  may  differ 
in  external  form  or  organization ;  and  this  cannot 
be  denied  without  proving  that  that  which  is  true 
of  the  whole  is  not  true  of  the  parts,  and  therefore 
that  the  whole  Jewish  church  is  lost.  Such  would 
however  be  the  calamity  if  we  give  a  logical  mean- 
ing to  the  Doctor's  propositions.  ''  The  figure  and 
the  thing  signified  by  it  cannot  be  one.  The  type 
and  the  reality  are  not  identical.  The  shadow  and 
the  substance  are  never  the  same  thing.  The 
Jewish  church  and  the  Christian  church  are  not 
therefore  the  same  church"  (p.  58).  It  never  has 
been  assumed  that  they  are  the  same  in  external 
nature,  but  the  same  in  spiritual  nature ;  and  all 
attempts  of  the  Doctor,  however  desperate  and 
reckless,  to  involve  the  Psedo-Baptists  in  the  ab- 
surdity of  assuming  that  external  Judaism  is 
"amalgamated"  with  Christianity,  are  perfectly 
5 


50  INFANT     BAPTISM 


gratuitous.  From  the  external  typical  nature  of 
the  Jewish  church,  it  is  demonstrable  that  the 
Jewish  church  in  spirituality  is  identical  with  the 
Christian  church,  since  as  the  Christian  church  is 
a  spiritual  church,  the  Jewish  church  could  not 
have  been  a  type  of  the  Christian  church,  unless 
as  a  type  it  contained  in  it  a  spiritual  meaning. 
And  so,  as  the  Jewish  church  had  a  spiritual  mean- 
ing in  its  types,  and  precepts,  and  doctrines,  and 
worship,  this  spiritual  meaning  was  applicable  to 
the  Jewish  church.  But  if  the  Doctor's  conclu- 
sion, "  the  Jewish  church  and  the  Christian 
church  are  not  therefore  the  same,"  be  true,  then 
the  Jews  were  all  lost,  which  being  absurd,  it  fol- 
lows that  his  premises  are  false. 

In  farther  proof  that  "  infant  baptism  leads  to 
Judaism,''  the  Doctor  asserts  that  "  it  is  at  war 
irreconcilably  with  the  fundamental  principles  of 
the  gospel  of  Christ"  (p.  60).  What  are  these 
principles  ?  "  The  gospel  of  Christ  teaches  as 
fundamental,  that  no  one  is  a  child  of  Grod  by 
carnal  descent" — granted,  but  infant  baptism  is 
not  founded  upon  carnal  descent.  "  That  all, 
whatever  may  be  their  ancestry,  or  their  relations, 
are  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath"  —  granted, 
but  all  infants  are  by  grace  the  "  children  of  the 
kingdom  of  God."     "  Nor  is  their  disposition,  or 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  51 


their  character  as  such,  changed  in  any  manner  by 
their  baptism  in  infancy"  —  granted,  for  we  do 
not  believe  in  infant  baptismal  regeneration. 
"  That  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  alone  can 
give  a  ti  'o  !■>  no  ]•  -arded  on  earth,  or  in  heaven, 
as  til -J  t.  urcii  a'  Grod"  —  granted,  so  far  as 
adults  ire  oono(iiied;  but  then  if  there  be  no 
other  £  •  'Ur.(l  of  salvation  for  infants  than  this, 
then  they  are  all  lost :  but  there  is  some  other 
ground  for  their  salvation,  and  therefore  there  is 
some  other  ground  for  their  baptism.  "  All  true 
religion  is  personal"  —  granted,  but  infants  are 
not  responsible  for  personal  religion.  Thus,  "  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,^' 
specified  by  the  Doctor,  do  not  touch  the  case  of 
infant  baptism.  There  are  other  ^^fundamental 
principles  of  the  gospel,^^  which  support  the  doc- 
trine of  infant  baptism,  and  these  the  Doctor  has 
not  mentioned,  and  so  the  argument  from  analogy 
remains  good. 

The  Doctor  says,  lastly,  "this  Paedo-Baptist 
argument  [from  analogy]  is  palpably  antiscrip- 
tural"  (p.  61).  And  here  is  his  argument.  The 
"  Paedo-Baptists  declare  that  the  Jewish  and  the 
Christian  are  the  same  church,  and  subsist  under 
the  same  covenant !  Never  was  there  a  conclusion 
more  palpably  antiscriptural"  (p.  63).     Then  the 


52  INFANT     BAPTISM 


Jews  are  all  lost !  But  the  gospel  covenant  was 
preached  to  the  Jews,  according  to  Paul,  as  has 
been  already  proved  j  and  therefore  the  Psedo- 
Baptist  argument  is  strictly  scriptural.  The  types, 
shadows,  symbols  and  sacrifices  of  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation were  founded  upon  the  atonement  of 
Christ,  to  be  made  in  due  time,  and  so  were  all 
confirmed  and  consummated  by  his  vicarious  death ; 
and  thus  the  rights  of  children,  sacramentally 
sealed  in  circumcision,  under  the  Jewish  dispensa- 
tion, were  confirmed  by  Christ's  death,  for  he 
"  came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil ;"  and  so  the 
atonement  being  the  foundation  of  both  ^'  the 
Jewish  and  the  Christian  church,"  they  must  be 
parts  of  the  same  ^'spiritual  building"  or  church. 
We  never  doubted  that  circumcision  was  a  part 
of  the  Jewish  ceremonial  law,  but  then  it  was 
more;  a  seal  of  the  gracious  covenant  also,  "a 
seal  of  the  righteousness  of  fiiith,"  according  to 
Paul;  and  according  to  the  Doctor  himself,  "a 
iype  of  regeneration  by  the  spirit"  (p.  64) ;  and 
thus  it  does  not  follow  that  "■  the  gospel  church  is 
in  fact  built  upon  the  law  of  Moses"  —  the  Doctor 
himself  being  judge. 

IV.  The  fourth  general  argument  of  the  Doc-, 
tor  is  :  ^^The  doctrines  upon  which  infant  baptism 

rests     CONTRADICT     THE     GREAT     FUNDAMENTAL 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  53 


PRINCIPLE  OF  JUSTIFICATION.  BY  FAITH^'  (p.  66). 

He  says,  ^'justification  is  the  act  of  Grod  by  which 
he  declares  a  man  just  and  righteous"  (p.  67). 
Very  well;  then  all  infants  are  in  a  state  of  justi 
fication,  for  Christ  himself  says,  '•'■  of  such  is  tha 
kingdom  of  God."  Again :  "  The  justified  are 
accepted,  and  approved,  as  if  they  had  nevei 
sinned"  (Ibid).  Very  well;  then  all  infants  are 
justified,  for  they  never  sinned,  and  so  are  uncon- 
ditionally justified  by  the  vicarious  death  of  Christ. 
The  Doctor  continues,  '■'■  The  doctrines  of  infant 
baptism,  on  the  other  hand,  are  not  made  known 
in  the  Bible."  That  is  not  the  question  now. 
The  doctrine  of  infant  justification  is  the  issue;  is 
that  found  in  the  Bible  ?  Yes.  Very  well ;  being 
then  justified  without  faith,  they  have  a  right  to 
baptism  without  faith,  just  as  the  adult,  justified 
by  faith,  has  a  right  to  baptism  because  he  is  jus- 
tified. 

When  he  says  that  "infant  baptism  finds  a 
place  there  [in  the  confessions]  sustained  by  all 
the  doctrines  with  which  popery  had  surrounded 
it,"  this  we  deny.  TFe  have  nothing  to  do  with 
those  confessions  in  which  infant  baptismal  justi- 
tification  and  regeneration  are  maintained.  The 
Doctor  knows,  or  ought  to  know,  that  the  dogmas 
of  Rome  on  this  subject  are  utterly  rejected  by 
6* 


54  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


the  evangelical  churches.  The  Doctor  knows  also^  or 
ought  to  know,  that  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land enjoy  a  latitude  in  interpreting  the  baptismal 
forms  of  that  church,  some  being  strictly  high  church, 
and  others  as  strictly  Calvinist,  and  others  still  Ar- 
minian.  The  Doctor  know^ialso,  or  ought  to  know, 
that  the  truly  evangelical  party  in  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  our  country  do  not  agree  with 
the  high  church  party  on  this  subject.  The  Doctor 
knows  also,  or  ought  to  know,  that  the  Methodists, 
in  interpreting  their  xlrticles  and  Baptismal  Forms, 
unqualifiedly  reject  the  dogma  that  the  infant  "is 
pardoned,  regenerated,  adopted,  &c.,  in  baptism." 
His  language  is,  "  Methodists  aflfirm  that  by  bap- 
tism the  new  birth,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and 
adoption,  are  all  to  the  child,  visibly  signed  and 
sealed.  The  child  therefore  in  baptism  is  pardoned 
of  sin,  is  regenerated,  is  adopted,  is  received  into 
the  church,  received  into  the  favor  of  God,  and 
saved  ia  heaven"  (p.  76).  This  is  popery  in  its 
worst  form,  and  the  Doctor  could  not  have  written 
this  language  without  the  profoundest  ignorance, 
or  the  most  unblushing  assumption.  The  Doctor 
knows,  and  he  avows  again  and  again  his  knowledge 
of  the  fact,  that  the  truly  evangelical  churches  and 
the  evangelical  portions  of  the  Lutheran  church, 
of  the  Church  of  England,  and  of  the  Protestant 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  55 


Episcopal  Church  in  this  country,  do  not  maintain 
this  view  of  infant  baptism ;  and  yet,  in  reckless 
opposition  to  his  own  knowledge,  and  in  bold  de- 
fiance of  the  truth  in  the  case,  he  deliberately 
attempts  to  deceive  ^Uhe  million."  Nor  is  this  all. 
He  gives  the  particular  opinions  of  some  churches, 
which  are  heretical,  and  next  of  other  churches, 
which  are  orthodox,  and  then  deduces  the  general 
conclusion  that  all  are  heretical ;  which  is  absurd. 
For  example,  some  churches  adopt  affusion  as  a 
proper  mode  of  baptism ;  but  one  very  respectable 
church  —  his  own  —  adopts  immersion  as  the  only 
proper  mode ;  therefore  all  the  Christian  churches 
adopt  sprinkling  and  pouring  as  the  only  proper 
modes  of  baptism  —  and  yet  the  Doctor  knows 
that  but  one  of  the  churches  —  his  own  —  prac- 
tises immersion  as  the  only  proper  mode  of  bap- 
tism. Again,  some  of  the  churches  practise  open 
communion ;  but  one  very  respectable  church  — 
his  own  —  practises  "close  communion;''  there- 
fore all  the  churches  practise  open  communion  — 
and  yet  the  Doctor  knows  that  but  one  of  the 
churches  —  his  own  —  practises  "close  commu- 
nion." Again,  some  of  the  churches  practise  in- 
fant baptism ;  but  one  very  respectable  church  — 
his  own  —  repudiates  the  practice ;  therefore  all 
the  churches  practise  infant  baptism  —  and  yet 


56  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


the  Doctor  knows  that  one  of  the  churches  —  his 
own — many  in  it  at  least — "abominate'^  the  prac- 
tice, and  that  he  has  written  a  "  little  volume"  on 
the  "  evils"  of  the  practice. 

The  Doctor  continues  to  pursue  this  mode  of 
false  reasoning.  After  quoting  from  the  "  Con- 
fessions" and  "Articles  of  Religion"  of  various 
Protestant  sects,  he  inquires,  with  apparent  ho- 
nesty, "Do  I  deal  unjustly  with  these  several 
sects  when  I  thus  represent  them  as  in  conflict 
with  themselves?"  (p.  77.)  And  to  prove  his 
premises  good,  he  introduces  Moehler,  a  Catholic 
priest,  a  false  witness,  to  prove  a  false  charge. 
Stop,  my  fair  reasoner  —  hear  our  own  witnesseSy 
which  you  yourself  have  adduced,  on  this  particu- 
lar point.  "Still  Protestants  of  all  classes,  as 
everywhere  else  so  among  us,  in  their  sermons^ 
and  their  conversations^  from  the  pulpit  and  the 
press,  continue  to  protest  that  they  do  not  attribute 
to  baptism  any  justifying  or  saving  power"  (pp. 
78,  79).  Very  well ;  and  here  the  Doctor  "  deals 
justly"  with  us,  and  he  must  abandon  his  pre- 
mises. 

But  no;  he  says,  "the  Confessions"  contain 
the  heresy,  and  here  he  applies  his  logic  again  to 
prove  it;  and  we  must  follow  him  farther.  He 
introduces,  next,  certain  Paedo-Baptists  who  main- 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  57 


tain  the  heresy,  and  then  concludes  :  ^'  These  arc 
the  expositions  of  standard  writers  among  Pgedo- 
Baptists  themselves  of  all  classes,  explanatory  of 
the  efficacy  of  baptism  as  taught  in  their  Confes- 
sions" (p.  80).  But  unfortunately  for  the  Doctor, 
the  Psedo-Baptists  he  adduces,  are  not  "  the  stan- 
dard writers"  among  all  Paedo-Baptists  —  and  the 
Doctor  knew  they  are  not,  and  then  his  argument 
is  founded  in  presumption,  or  he  supposed  they 
are,  and  then  his  argument  is  founded  in  igno- 
rance. And  yet  the  Doctor  does  make  some  ex- 
ceptions, though  in  doing  so  he  adds  ''insult  to 
injury."  "But  Presbyterians,  Congregationalists, 
and  Methodists,  do  not  surely  believe  these  bap- 
tismal doctrines  !  They  all,  I  admit,  roundly  deny 
it !  Grladly  would  we  credit  their  disavowals"  (pp. 
80,  81).  If  the  Doctor  understood  the  whole  sub- 
ject, he  would  probably  credit  the  "  disavowals," 
and  withdraw  the  odious  charges  of  inconsistency 
and  heresy.  He  has  read  "  Goode  on  Infant  Bap- 
tism," and  might  have  obtained  from  that  work 
information  sufficient  to  enable  him  to  understand 
the  nature  and  truth  of  the  disavowals.  He  ought 
to  know,  that  while  phrases  in  the  Confessions, 
Catechisms,  Articles  of  Beligion,  and  Baptismal 
Forms,  of  Protestant  churches,  are  interpreted  by 
one  party  of  Psedo-Baptists  in  favor  of  baptismal 


58  INFANT     BAPTISM, 


regeneration,  they  are  interpreted  by  another 
party,  the  truly  evangelical^  directly  in  opposition 
to  the  heresy ;  and  that  this  is  done  by  the  Pres- 
byterian, Methodist,  and  the  evangelical  portion 
of  the  Episcopal  churches,  in  this  country,  and 
in  England :  and  this  he  does,  in  part,  himself 
acknowledge.  "  The  Presbyterian  and  Methodist 
churches,  however,  in  this  country,  and  in  Eng- 
land, I  am  reminded,  are  in  their  numerous  divi- 
sions, highly  evangelical.  In  all  these,  justifica- 
tion hy  faith  and  infant  baptism  exist  together  ^' 
(p.  82).  A  more  fatal  concession  to  the  Doctor's 
argument  under  consideration,  and  to  his  whole 
book,  is  not  possible.  If  this  be  so  —  and  it  is  so 
— and  the  Doctor  admits  it  to  be  so — then  infant 
baptism  does  not  contradict  the  great  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith. 

The  Doctor  must  have  felt  very  sensibly  the 
force  of  this  concession,  for,  in  the  next  breath, 
he  endeavors  to  explain  why  they  "exist  toge- 
ther," and  to  prove,  that  the  '^destruction  of  the 
one  by  the  other  is  inevitable.''  We  give  his  ex- 
planation :  "  The  Methodist  churches  have  not 
existed  long  enough,  to  feel  the  evil  effects  of 
infant  baptism"  (same  page).  This  is  a  mere  as- 
sumption, totally  groundless,  while  it  is  a  conces- 
sion, most  conclusive,  that  the  Methodist  church 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  59 


is  pure  and  sound  at  present.  Time  enough ! 
what  length  of  time,  will  the  Doctor  please  define, 
is  required  to  confirm  or  disprove  the  truth  of  his 
declaration  ?  Time  !  why  though  organized  after 
the  Baptist  church  in  this  country  by  a  hundred 
years,  the  Methodist  church  already  outnumbers, 
and  overtops  her  in  intelligence,  in  wealth,  in 
zeal,  in  success,  in  pious  labors,  and  in  influence. 
Time !  why  infant  baptism  has  been  retained  in 
the  Methodist  church  from  the  beginning,  and  in 
all  the  course  of  her  astonishing  progress,  she  has 
not  yet  felt  or  exhibited  "  the  evil  effects  of  infant 
baptism ;''  and  the  presumption  is,  she  never  will, 
so  long  as  she  maintains  that  institution  in  its 
original  and  apostolic  purity  and  simplicity.  Time 
enough  ! — this  is  a  singular  mode  of  reasoning — 
it  is  in  fact  begging  the  question. 

Now  follow  the  Doctor's  proofs  —  that  the  de- 
struction of  the  Methodist  church  is  inevitable, 
so  long  as  it  retains  infant  baptism.  First :  ^^  how 
large  the  number  of  their  ministers  and  laymen 
who  annually  pass  over  to  episcopacy  —  to  pusey- 
ism,  and  to  Rome  "  (same  page)  I  This  is  a  mis- 
take. The  number  is  small,  very  small,  and  even 
this  small  number  go  from  worldly  motives,  or 
under  the  impulses  of  ambition,  or  to  be  free  from|( 
the  pious  restraints  of  the  doctrines  we  teach,  or 


60  INFANT     BAPTISM 


from  groundless  objections  to  our  ecclesiastical 
government^  and  not  from  opposition  to  infant 
baptism  in  our  cbureh,  for  they  find  that  institu- 
tion degraded  from  its  dignity,  and  corrupted  from 
its  purity,  in  Puseyite  and  Romish  churches  — 
which  is  a  singular  proof  that  they  regarded  in- 
fant baptism  as  an  evil^  or  that  they  regarded  the 
Methodist  church  as  corrupt  because  it  main- 
tained the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism !  Put  the 
Doctor's  proof  in  another  form.  Because  a  few 
Methodists  go  to  Puseyism  and  Rome — therefore 
infant  baptism  in  the  Methodist  church  will  in- 
evitably destroy  the  doctrine  of  justification  as 
maintained  by  the  Methodists.  Let  us  see  the 
result  of  this  logic  applied  fairly  in  other  in- 
stances. Many  Methodists  annually  backslide 
and  return  to  the  world — therefore  infant  baptism 
will  inevitably  destroy  the  doctrine  of  justification 
as  maintained  by  the  Methodists !  Again :  a 
large  number  of  persons  converted  in  the  Baptist 
Church  annually  backslide  and  return  to  the  world 
—  therefore  the  Baptist  church,  though  it  repu- 
diates and  "abominates"  the  doctrine  of  infant 
baptism,  must  inevitably  perish  !  Again  :  a  large 
number  of  persons  converted  in  Methodist  revi- 
vals annually  go  to  the  Baptist  church — therefore 
the    Methodist    church   must  inevitably  be   de- 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  61 


stroyed  by  infant  baptism  !  —  though  a  sufficient 
number  of  young  converts  remain  to  repair  an- 
nually the  loss,  and  still  she  outnumbers  the  Bap- 
tist church  !  In  a  word,  if  because  a  few  leave 
the  Methodist  church,  and  go  to  "  Puseyism  and 
Rome,"  the  Methodist  church  must  in  time  in- 
evitably perish,  then  because  a  large  number  of 
persons  converted  in  Methodist  revivals  annually 
go  to  the  Baptist  church  —  therefore  the  Baptist 
church  must  be  classed  with  Puseyism  and  Rome 
— a  conclusion  from  which  the  Doctor  recoils,  but 
to  which  his  logic  drives  his  church — however  un- 
congenial and  disagreeable  may  be  the  association. 
For  if  the  departure  of  a  few  Methodists  to  Pu- 
seyism and  Rome  be  a  sign  portentous  of  the  in- 
evitable corruption  and  downfall  of  the  Methodist 
church,  then  the  departure  of  a  few  dissatisfied 
old  Methodists  and  many  Methodist  young  con- 
verts to  the  Baptist  church,  must  accelerate  the 
corruption  and  downfall  of  the  Methodist  church 
—  that  is,  with  Puseyism  and  Rome  on  one  hand, 
and  the  Baptist  church  on  the  other — the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Methodist  church  is  inevitable  !  This 
cannot  be;  for  we  have  not  only  long  survived 
the  double  shock,  but  felt  no  sensible  diminution 
in  strength  or  numbers,  piety  or  purity,  zeal  or 
success,  by  the  attacks  or  the  loss  on  either  hand. 
6 


62  INFANT     BAPTISM 


No ;  the  acquisitions  of  Puseyism  and  Rome  from 
us  we  never  deplore  as  an  evidence  of  our  weak- 
ness or  corruption,  but  as  convenient  occasions  to 
increase  our  strength,  and  preserve  our  purity, 
while  the  large  supplies  with  which  we  annually 
furnish  the  Baptist  church  afford  us  the  satisfac- 
tion of  believing,  that  we  are  promoting  the  cause 
of  God  by  strengthening  a  sister  church,  however 
reluctant  she  may  be  to  own  the  fact,  or  acknow- 
ledge the  debt. 

The  second  proof  the  Doctor  adduces,  that  the 
destruction  of  the  Methodist  church  is  inevitable, 
so  long  as  it  maintains  the  doctrine  of  infant  bap- 
tism, is :  "  other  causes  have  been  still  more  in- 
fluential,^' which  he  enumerates  as  follows.  ^^  The 
people  have  the  Bible  in  their  hands,  and  they 
read  it."  That  is  the  very  reason  why  the  Metho- 
dists embrace  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism,  and 
oppose  the  exclusiveness  of  the  Baptists  in  immer- 
sion and  "close  communion ;''  for  surely  they  would 
do  neither  the  one  nor  the  other,  unless  they  be- 
lieved they  were  supported  by  the  Bible ;  and  so 
long  as  they  continue  to  read  it  properly,  and  in- 
terpret it  fairly,  they  will  support  the  doctrine  of 
"justification  by  faith,"  and  practise  infant  bap- 
tism. "  The  people  have  the  Bible  in  their  hands, 
and  they  read  it" — thank  G-od  for  it — we  want  no 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  63 


better  safeguard  to  the  institutions  and  doctrines 
of  Methodism  than  the  Bible.  To  it  we  appeal  — 
we  appeal  to  it  as  it  is  —  we  are  satisfied  with  it 
as  it  is  —  we  want  no  "  new  translation"  —  on  tbe 
Bible,  as  it  is,  we  stand  or  fall.  The  Bible  is  a 
plain  book,  easily  understood,  and  the  Methodists 
have  not  been  indifferent  to  its  teachings.  They 
are  able  to  judge  for  themselves  in  so  plain  a  case 
as  that  which  refers  to  themselves  and  the  rights 
of  their  children.  They  are  honest,  too,  in  their 
reading  the  Holy  Scriptures;  and  so  well  con- 
vinced are  they  of  the  truth  of  their  opinions,  on 
all  material  points,  that  probably  no  people  can  be 
found  who  are  more  charitable,  or  less  inclined  to 
controversy,  than  they  are.  And  of  this  one  thing 
are  they  most  confident,  that  their  religious  views 
are  so  conformable  to  the  Bible,  that  as  a  church, 
both  in  its  membership  and  its  ministry,  by  their 
preaching,  worship,  writings,  labors,  and  example, 
they  have  been  made  a  very  great  blessing  to 
other  evangelical  churches  —  the  Baptist  church 
in  particular.  Let  the  Doctor  himself  then  rejoice 
in  this  —  that  the  3Iethodists  ^'  have  the  Bible  in 
their  hands,  and  that  they  read  it," 

The  Doctor  continues:  "revivals  have  been  pre- 
valent." On  this  a  volume  might  be  written.  The 
conversion  of  a  soul  is  a  great  event  —  a  revival 


64  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


is  a  mighty  work.  The  apostolic  church  was  a 
revival  church.  The  Methodist  church  is  a  revival 
church  —  it  is  proverbial  for  its  many  and  mighty 
revivals.  In  this,  is  its  great  proof  that  it  is  the 
church  of  God.  In  this,  it  gives  a  convincing 
evidence  that  it  is  founded  upon  the  Bible.  In  no 
church,  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  have  revi- 
vals been  so  prevalent  and  extensive  as  in  the 
Methodist  church  —  this  is  now  admitted  on  all 
hands  —  and  it  is  admitted  also  on  all  hands,  that 
no  church,  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  has 
arisen  to  such  a  magnitude,  in  so  short  a  time,  as 
the  Methodist  church.  To  God,  the  great  Builder, 
be  all  the  glory.  Let  revivals  cease,  and  the 
church  will  cease  —  nothing  will  remain  but  a 
lifeless  formality.  But  if  infant  baptism  be  the 
all-comprehending  evil  to  a  church  the  Doctor 
would  make  it,  how  will  he  explain  the  preva- 
lency  and  magnitude  of  the  revivals  with  which 
God  has  favored  and  honored  the  Methodist 
church  ?  The  seal  of  God  is  conspicuously  affixed 
to  the  Methodist  church.  That  is  enough.  What 
does  this  prove?  Several  things.  That  infant 
baptism,  as  maintained  by  the  Methodists,  is  not 
an  evil.  That  it  is  an  evil,  for  Doctor  Howell  to 
write  against  the  Methodist  church  as  he  has 
done.     That  it  is  an  evil,  for  any  among  the  Bap- 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  65 


tists,  who  have  read  his  book,  to  cherish  the 
opinions  of  the  Methodist  church  which  he  does. 
That  it  is  an  evil,  to  exclude  those  whom  God 
has  sealed  as  entitled  to  sacramental  communion. 
Revivals  !  what  evangelical  church  in  England  or 
America  has  not  enjoyed  the  blessed  effects  of 
Methodist  revivals?  And  the  last  church  in 
Christendom,  to  raise  a  warning  voice  against  the 
Methodist  church,  is  the  Baptist  church  —  Doctar 
HowelVs  own  church  —  for  she,  of  the  sister 
churches,  has  reaped  the  largest  share  of  our 
heaven-sealed  and  arduous  labors. 

The  Doctor  continues :  "  the  truth  has  been  left 
free  to  combat  error."  That  is  true :  and  well 
has  the  Methodist  church  wielded  the  weapons  of 
truth.  Not  by  systematic  and  violent  controver- 
sies has  she  done  this,  but  through  millions  of 
converts  who  have  embraced  the  truth  she  taught 
—  by  the  exemplary  lives  of  her  members,  "epis- 
tles known  and  read  of  all  men"  —  by  her  in- 
vigorating and  reforming  influence  upon  civil 
and  social  society  —  by  her  influence  upon  every 
department  of  professional  life  —  by  her  influence 
to  the  extremities  of  the  church  and  state  —  and 
by  her  influence  upon  the  Baptist  church  itself. 
Why  then  is  the  Doctor  desirous  to  array  his 
brethren  against  the  Methodist  church  ?  Is  it, 
6* 


66  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


indeed,  because  she  nurses  in  her  bosom  the  sum 
of  evil  —  infant  baptism  —  the  producing  cause 
of  "inevitable  destruction?"  Nay;  that  it  can- 
not be;  for  if  it  was,  then  she  could  not  have 
wielded  the  truth  as  she  has.  But  this  it  may  be 
—  for  such  is  man  —  beholding  enrolled  among 
the  leading  laymen  and  ministers  in  the  Baptist 
church,  and  by  the  thousand  among  her  private 
members,  those  who  were  taught  "justification  by 
faith'*  under  the  preaching  of  the  mighty  men  of 
Methodism,  the  Doctor  attempts  to  trace  the  pre- 
sent strength  of  the  Baptist  church  to  her  own 
powers  alone  in  wielding  the  truth  —  we  ascribe 
it,  chiefly,  to  the  use  she  has  made  of  the  in- 
sidious dogma  of  exclusive  immersion,  her  sophis- 
tical opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism, 
the  contact  she  has  had  with  other  churches,  and 
her  large  contributions  from  Methodist  revivals. 
She  forgets,  that  she  has  been  gradually  com- 
pelled, by  the  resistless  tide  of  Methodistic  in- 
fluence, to  moderate  her  violence  in  maintaining 
her  favorite  doctrines  of  the  decrees  and  final  per- 
severance—  that  the  frenzy  on  these  subjects  is 
now  almost  wholly  confined  to  diminutive  Baptist 
societies  in  the  obscurity  of  forest  life  —  and  that 
these  characteristics  of  her  faith  must  be  alluded 
to  with  extreme  caution,  with  many  salvos,  and 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  67 


with  pious  courtesy,  in  refined  and  intelligent 
communities.  She  forgets,  that  in  England,  paedo- 
baptism  and  open  communion  are  extending  rapidly 
in  her  own  churches,  and  practised  at  her  own 
altars.  She  forgets,  what  repulsive  and  pernicious 
"  errors"  of  her  founders  she  has  abandoned,  what 
disgusting  rites  and  ceremonies  of  her  infancy 
she  has  discontinued,  what  forms  and  observances, 
and  what  truths  and  institutions,  in  her  progress 
towards  purity  and  order,  she  has  borrowed  from 
other  evangelical  churches.  She  forgets,  that  since 
the  auspicious  time  "  truth  was  left  free  to  control 
error,"  it  combatted  her  errors  —  and  not  in  vain 
for  her  —  and  yet  not  with  entire  success  —  for 
the  error  of  exclusive  immersion,  and  its  concomi- 
tant "close  communion,"  still  remain  —  and  it  is 
likely,  in  this  country,  she  will  not  easily  surren- 
der these  —  for  on  these  depend  chiefly  her  sepa- 
rateness  as  a  Christian  community.  She  forgets, 
that  so  strong  has  been  the  vindication  of  "  the 
truth"  from  the  Bible,  by  the  Paedo-Baptist 
churches,  against  these,  her  peculiar  tenets,  that 
she  has  assembled  her  strong  men  (who  are  now 
employed),  to  remodel  the  Bible,  and  conform  it 
to  her  errors  —  a  work  in  which  the  Bomish 
church  has  preceded  her.  Fortunate  was  the  day 
for  her,  when  truth  unfettered,  broke  her  bonds, 


68  INFANT     BAPTISM, 


and  offered  her  entire  freedom ;  and  happier  had 
she  been,  had  she  thrown  away  all  her  chains. 
Fortunate,  too,  was  that  day  for  the  evangelical 
churches,  for  they  welcomed  its  increasing  light, 
and  extricated  Infant  Baptism  from  the  abuses  to 
which  it  had  been  perverted  for  centuries  by  spi- 
ritual despotism,  and  restored  it  to  its  original 
apostolic  simplicity  and  purity  —  from  which,  so 
long  as  '^  truth  is  left  free  to  combat  error,''  it  can 
never  be  removed,  either  by  the  opposition  of  the 
Baptists,  or  the  sophistries  of  Pusey  and  Rome. 

The  Doctor  continues :  '^  All  these  churches 
have  been  in  contact  with  the  Baptists."  This  is 
begging  —  wrenching  the  question — in  the  face 
of  positive  and  opposing  facts.  It  is  begging  the 
question,  for  it  is  assuming,  that  the  Baptists  are 
right,  and  that  the  other  evangelical  churches  are 
wrong,  on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism  —  while 
this  has  been  a  subject  of  controversy  ever  since 
the  modern  Baptist  church  began.  It  is  begging 
the  question,  for  it  is  assuming,  that  the  Baptist 
church  is  exerting  a  reforming  influence  on  the 
other  evangelical  churches  on  the  subject  of  infant 
baptism,  whicb  is  denied ;  for  where,  in  town  or 
country,  has  this  influence  made  any  sensible  im- 
pression upon  Paedo-Baptist  communities  ?  It  is 
begging  the  question,  for  the  Doctor  cannot  ad- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  69 


duce  a  single  fact  to  prove  that  contact  with  the 
Baptist  church  has  improved  the  other  evangelical 
churches  on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism.  It  is 
begging  the  question,  for  it  is  a  vain  conceit  to 
assume,  that  contact  with  his  church  will  ever 
effect  any  modification  in  other  churches  on  the 
subject  of  infant  baptism.  It  is  begging  the  ques- 
tion, for  how  does  the  Doctor  know,  that  the  con- 
tact into  which  the  Baptist  church  has  been 
brought  by  the  providence  of  Grod  with  other 
evangelical  churches,  will  produce  material  changes 
in  their  doctrinal  views,  and  none  in  his  own? 
and  how  can  he  determine  that  they  will  not  ulti- 
mately convince  his  church  of  the  evils  of  exclu- 
sive immersion  and  "  close  communion  ?"  and  so 
cause  the  Baptists  to  abandon  these  dogmas  ?  — 
as  the  Baptists  are  now  doing  in  England.  But  it 
is  begging  the  question  in  the  face  of  positive  and 
opposing  facts.  1st.  Contact  of  the  Baptist  church 
with  the  evangelical  Psedo-Baptist  churches  has 
been  the  cause  of  vast  improvement  to  the  Bap- 
tist church ;  and  if  she  will  break  down  the  iron 
wall  of  "close  communion,"  and  so  come  into 
closer  union  with  them,  she  will  derive  a  still 
greater  improvement  —  at  least  in  brotherly  love 
and  Christian  charities.  2d.  Some  of  the  evan- 
gelical Paedo-Baptist  churches  existed  be/ore  the 


70  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


modern  Baptist  church  had  a  being,  and  they 
maintain  unchanged  their  Psedo-Baptist  views. 
3d.  Since  the  evangelical  churches  have  been 
brought  into  contact  with  the  Baptist  church, 
they  have  encountered  nothing  but  opposition 
from  the  Baptists,  on  the  subject  of  infant  bap- 
tism, and  the  mode  of  baptism;  and  yet  they 
have  steadily  increased  and  flourished  —  retaining 
the  doctrine  of  ''justification  by  faith'^  in  its 
original  scriptural  purity  —  maintaining  the  doc- 
trine of  infant  baptism  with  unabated  devotion  — 
and,  with  a  boundless  prospect  of  success  before 
them,  proceed  to  the  discharge  of  their  appro- 
priate work  almost  careless  of  the  pertinaceous 
opposition  of  the  Baptists.  4th.  What  the  Doctor 
calls  "contact,''  is  in  fact  conflict  —  and  we  re- 
peat, the  Baptists  have  been  taught  many  im- 
portant and  useful  lessons  by  the  conflict.  5th. 
But  we  deny  that  there  has  ever  been  any  con- 
tact in  the  case,  in  the  full  sense  of  the  word  — 
for  the  Baptists  have  reared  a  wall  —  '^  close  com- 
munion"—  which  eflectually  excludes  all  other 
evangelical  churches  from  sacramental  communion 
with  her,  the  most  intimate  communion  the  church 
of  God  can  enjoy,  and  which  unites  all  Christians 
in  the  holiest  fellowship  possible  on  earth.  6th.  It 
is  admitted,  that  contact  with  the  Baptists,  such 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  71 


as  it  is,  has  been  the  occasion  of  a  few  erring,  for 
the  most  part,  disaffected  members  withdrawing 
from  the  evangelical  Paedo-Baptist  churches  to 
unite  with  the  Baptists;  but  then  the  methods 
adopted  to  gain  over  these  few  have  not  always 
been  manly  and  honorable,  and  not  in  a  single  in- 
stance, in  our  judgment,  has  an  accession  been 
made  by  the  force  of  unsophisticated  truth,  or 
fair  argumentation.  This  much  is  unquestionably 
true  :  the  sum  total  of  withdrawal,  whether  it  be 
few  or  many,  from  the  evangelical  Paedo-Baptist 
churches  —  and  we  can  answer  for  them  all — has 
produced  no  change  whatever  in  their  views  of 
the  doctrines  of  infant  baptism  and  justification  by 
faith.  7th.  The  contact,  in  a  word,  has  produced 
(if  it  has  produced  anything),  irritation  and  wrang- 
ling, hurtful  to  weak  consciences,  causing  unhappy 
divisions  in  families  and  neighborhoods,  and  re- 
pelling the  churches  to  a  greater  distance  from 
each  other.  And  unless  the  Baptists  moderate 
the  zeal  with  which  they  maintain  their  peculiar 
tenets,  or  if  other  writers  among  them,  like  Dr. 
Howell,  shall  wage  a  relentless  warfare  against  the 
evangelical  Paedo-Baptist  churches,  the  evils  of 
division  will  be  aggravated  inconceivably,  and  the 
last  fibre  of  the  bond  that  now  binds  them  to  the 
Baptists  will  be  severed  forever.     Inconclusive  is 


72  INFANT     BAPTISM 


the  reasoning  of  the  Doctor,  that  contact  with  the 
Baptists  perpetuates  the  doctrine  of  "justification 
hy  faith"  in  the  evangelical  Paedo-Baptist  churches ; 
and  vain  is  the  fond  hope,  should  he  indulge  such 
a  hope,  that  this  "contact"  will  ever  cause  them 
to  abrogate  the  impressive  and  scriptural  institu- 
tion of  "  infant  baptism." 

The  examples  which  the  Doctor  gives  are  alike 
inconclusive,  because  inappropriate.  "  The  Refor- 
mation had  its  Luthers  —  Melancthons  —  Calvins 
—  Zwingles  —  Ridleys  —  Latimers?  Whence  now 
has  infant  baptism  carried  all  their  evangelical 
principles  ?  The  same  causes  will  ultimately,  in 
the  Presbyterian,  Methodist,  Congregational,  and 
all  other  Psedo-Baptist  churches,  produce  the  same 
results"  (p.  83).  We  answer — though  these  great 
Beformers  are  dead,  and  the  churches  they  founded 
are  mouldered  to  dust,  yet  the  "  evangelical  prin- 
ciples" which  they  published  to  the  world,  and  for 
which  Bidley  and  Latimer  suffered  martyrdom, 
still  live,  because  they  are  imperishable;  and  to 
this  day  they  constitute  the  foundation  of  all  that 
is  truly  evangelical  in  the  theological  creeds  and 
religious  institutions  on  the  continent  of  Europe 
and  in  the  kingdom  of  Great  Britain.  "Justifi- 
cation by  faith"  was  the  great  cardinal  "  evangeli- 
cal'' truth  with  which   Luther  shook  the  papal 


INFANT    BAPTISM 


church  to  the  very  foundation,  and  inflicted  a  blow 
upon  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope,  from  which  he 
can  never  recover.  "  Justification  by  faith"  was 
the  central  truth  of  the  Reformation,  Does  the 
Doctor  affirm,  that  the  ^'evangelical  principles" 
of  the  Reformation  have  all  passed  away  ?  Yes ; 
this  he  roundly  asserts  in  the  quotation  above; 
and  this  the  history  of  the  evangelical  Paedo-Bap- 
tist  churches  since  the  Reformation  palpably  con- 
tradicts. To  this  day,  the  Lutheran  church  main- 
tains the  doctrine  of  "justification  by  faith,^'  and 
many  other  important  "  evangelical  principles"  — 
and  Lutheran  churches  are  numerous  and  flourish- 
ing on  the  continent  of  Europe,  in  England,  and 
America.  And  "Presbyterian"  churches,  who 
claim  "  Calvin"  as  their  founder,  also,  at  this  day, 
exist  and  flourish  in  the  same  countries.  And  let 
it  be  observed,  that  "  infant  baptism"  still  exists 
in  all  these  churches.  So  it  is  not  true,  that 
"infant  baptism  has  carried  away  all  the  evan- 
gelical principles"  of  the  churches  of  the  Refor- 
mation —  indeed,  no  cause  has  done  it.  And  so 
the  conclusion  of  the  Doctor  —  "the  same  causes 
will  ultimately,  in  the  Presbyterian,  Methodist, 
Congregational,  and  all  other  Paedo-Baptist 
churches,  produce  the  same  results"  —  falls  to 
the  ground.  But  this  is  not  ail.  The  apostolic 
7 


74  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


■cliurcbes  had  their  Pauls^  and  Peters,  and  Johns, 
and  Timothies — and  the  Doctor  assures  himself 
that  they  never  preached,  or  practised,  or  allowed 
infant  baptism  —  and  what  soon  became  of  the 
churches  they  planted,  and  the  "  evangelical  prin- 
ciples" they  preached  ?  The  churches  at  Corinth, 
Ephesus,  Philippi,  Thessalonica,  Sardis,  Rome  — 
which  the  Doctor  believes  were  all  Baptist 
churches  —  where  are  they?  They,  he  assumes, 
Tvere  not  Paedo-Baptist  churches  —  what,  then, 
"carried  away  all  their  evangelical  principles?" 
What  causes  "  ultimately"  corrupted  the  apostolic 
churches,  and  produced  Popery?  Not  infant  bap- 
tism as  one  of  them,  for  the  Doctor  maintains  it 
did  not  then  exist.  If  it  did  exist  in  them,  they 
became  corrupt ;  if  it  did  not  exist  in  them,  they 
nevertheless  became  corrupt.  That  they  did  be- 
come corrupt  is  a  fact  of  history.  But  the  Doc- 
tor maintains,  it  did  not  exist  in  them,  and  yet 
-they  became  corrupt ;  and  therefore  '^  causes,"  in 
which  infant  baptism  is  not  to  be  numbered,  de- 
stroyed them,  and  "carried  away  their  evangelical 
principles."  Very  well;  if  any  of  the  churches 
of  the  Reformation,  that  maintained  infant  bap- 
tism, subsequently  degenerated  and  became  hereti- 
cal, it  does  not  follow,  that  degeneration  and 
heresy  were   produced   by  infant  baptism.     The 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  75 


same  causes,  which  corrupted  the  apostolic 
churches,  may  have  produced  the  '^same  legiti- 
mate results''  in  any  of  the  evangelical  churches 
of  the  Reformation  that  have  become  corrupt  — 
and  so  may  corrupt  any  evangelical  Psedo-Baptist 
church,  in  all  time — and  even  the  Baptist  church 
itself —  for  we  have  proceeded  in  this  argument 
upon  the  Doctor's  own  ground — that  the  apostolic 
churches  were  all  the  purest  sort  of  Baptist 
churches. 

The  true  "causes"  which  corrupted  the  apos- 
tolic churches,  or  to  any  extent  any  evangelical 
Psedo-Baptist  churches  of  the  Reformation,  or  any 
evangelical  church  since  the  times  of  the  Apostles 
and  the  Reformation,  we  shall  state  definitely  at 
the  proper  place.  What  we  have  just  now  stated 
will  suffice  to  show  the  fallacy  of  the  Doctor's 
reasoning. 

However,  before  we  leave  the  general  argument 
of  the  Doctor  under  consideration,  we  offer  the 
reader  two  additional  remarks.  The  first  is  :  the 
Doctor,  as  most  Baptist  writers,  and  all  other  in- 
ventors of  novel  opinions  of  religious  ceremonies 
and  doctrines  have  done,  in  his  opposition  to  in- 
fant baptism,  has  invented  new  principles  of  duty, 
new  axioms  of  philosophy,  and  new  rulers  of  logic, 
alike  repulsive  to  reason,  to  common  sense,  to  his- 


76  INFANT     BAPTISM 


tory,  and  to  scripture,  as  the  present  section  of 
this  reply  must  have  evinced  to  the  candid  reader. 
The  second  remark  is :  so  far  from  ^'  the  princi- 
ples on  which  infant  baptism  is  founded  (thci 
Doctor  uses  the  term  ^^ predicated/^  a  misappli- 
cation of  the  term)  contradicting  the  doctrine  of 
"justification  by  faith/'  they  are  in  harmony 
with  it.  The  principles  on  which  "justification 
by  faith''  is  founded,  are  the  principles  of  grace. 
The  principles  on  which  infant  baptism  is  founded, 
are  the  principles  oi  grace.  "Justification,"  in 
the  adult,  is  "by  faith,"  "through  grace/^  and 
so  justification  by  faith,  through  grace,  gives  him 
a  title  to  baptism.  But  "justification"  in  the  in- 
fant is  by  grace,  without  faith,  and  so  justification 
by  grace,  without  faith,  gives  the  infant  a  title  to 
baptism.  G-race,  in  the  case  of  infants,  dispenses 
with  faith  in  order  to  both  justification  and  bap- 
tism, and,  investing  them  with  justification,  con- 
sequently justification  in  the  infant  as  much  enti- 
tles him  to  baptism  without  faith,  as  justification 
entitles  the  adult  to  baptism  by  faith.  This  con- 
clusion cannot  be  denied,  without  denying  the 
right  of  infants  to  salvation,  for  none  can  be 
saved  who  are  not  justified.  The  "principles," 
therefore,  which  the  Doctor  assumes  "contradict 
the  doctrine  of  justificntion   by  faith,"    are   the 


INFANT     BAPTISM 


principles  of  grace,  and  we  leave  him  to  review 
his  groujad. 

Y.  The  fifth  general  argument  of  the  Doctor  is  : 
"  Infant  baptism  is  an  evil,  because  it  is  in  di- 
rect CONFLICT  with  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  REGENE- 
RATION BY  THE  Spirit'^  (p.  85), 

Before  the  Doctor  proceeds  to  adduce  any  proof 
of  this  "  evil,'^  he  gives  us  a  strange  mixture  of 
candor  and  misrepresentation.  ''  Our  brethren  of 
all  the  Protestant  denominations,  teach  that  we 
are  regenerated  hy  the  Spirit  of  God ;  and  they 
also  teach  that  we  are  regenerated  by  baptism" 
(pp.  85,  86).  _  Again:  ^'I  am  gratified  to  say, 
however,  that  all  these  denominations  have  gra- 
dually acquired,  as  they  became  better  instructed 
in  the  Word  of  Grod,  more  distinct  and  full  con- 
ceptions of  the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  regeneration ; 
and  especially  is  this  true  of  the  various  classes  of 
Methodists,  Congregationalists,  and  Presbyterians, 
ill  our  country  and  in  Europe"  (p.  91).  And 
again  :  "  More  than  this  ]  they  give,  in  their  life 
and  character,  most  gratifying  evidence  that  they 
are  themselves  the  subjects  of  this  heavenly  reno- 
vation'^  (p.  91).  We  will  give  these  honest  con- 
cessions a  moment's  consideration.  1st.  The 
churches  that  teach  the  doctrine  of  regeneration 
by  the  Spirit,  teach  sound  doctrine,  and  the  Doc- 
7* 


78  INFANT     BAPTISM 


tor  concedes  the  evangelical  P^edo-Baptist  churclies 
teach  this;  therefore  infant  baptism  in  those 
churches  is  not  in  '•  conflict  with  the  doctrine  of 
regeneration  by  the  Spirit"  —  the  Doctor  himself 
being  the  witness.  2d.  The  Doctor  concedes  that 
certain  Paedo-Baptist  churches  have  been  gra- 
dually improving  in  the  knowledge  of  the  Word 
of  God  and  work  of  the  Spirit  in  regeneration, 
and  that  this  specially  is  true  of  the  Methodists, 
&c.  Therefore,  infant  baptism  has  not  caused 
these  churches  to  degenerate,  as  the  Doctor 
asserted  in  the  preceding  section.  Where,  then, 
is  the  evil  of  infant  baptism  —  the  Doctor  himself 
being  judge.  3d.  He  concedes,  that  the  evan- 
gelical Pssdo-Baptist  churches,  in  their  life  and 
character^  give  the  most  gratifying  evidence  that 
they  have  been  regenerated  hy  the  Spirit  Well 
done,  my  dear  Doctor — where  then  is  the  evil  of 
infant  baptism  ?  Have  you  more  gratifying  evi- 
dence that  the  Baptists  have  been  regenerated  by 
the  Spirit  ?  Would  the  Apostles  themselves  have 
demanded  more  as  a  proof  of  regeneration,  and  as 
pre-requisite  to  sacramental  communion?  If  in 
"  life  and  character'^  —  and  more  cannot  be  re- 
quired—  the  evangelical  Pgedo-Baptist  churches 
"  give  the  most  satisfactory  evidence"  of  regene- 
ration by  the  Spirit,  then  incontestably  they  do 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  79 


not  teach  regeneration  by  baptism,  because  belief 
in  regeneration  by  the  Spirit  implies^  that  they  do 
not.  believe  that  they  were  regenerated  by  baptism 
in  infancy  —  the  Doctor  himself  being  judge. 
These  are  the  fatal  concessions  which  the  Doctor 
makes  with  regard  to  the  evangelical  Psedo-Bap- 
tist  churches,  especially  the  various  classes  of 
Methodists,  Congregationalists,  and  Presbyterians 
in  our  country  and  in  Europe."  All  this  is  can- 
did :  but  he  is  not  content  to  rest  here  long :  he 
must  find  '^  eviF'  in  infant  baptism  somewhere,  in 
some  churches,  and  in  some  form,  and  we  follow 
him  in  the  pursuit. 

"Yet  when  infant  baptism  is  to  be  adminis- 
tered, or  defended,  all  their  evangelical  princi- 
ples are  apparently  forgotten.  Baptism  and  rege- 
neration are  not  now  esteemed  by  them  as  separate 
and  distinct  things,  but  they  declare  them  essen- 
tially identified.'^  And  this,  he  says,  he  "shall 
sustain  by  the  amplest  testimony"  (pp.  91,  92). 
He  adduces  quotations  from  the  "  Augsburg,' ' 
"  the  earlier  Helvetic  and  another  Lutheran  Con- 
fession," "  the  Westminster  Confession,"  "  the 
Belgic  Confession,"  "  the  Heidelburg  Catechism, 
or  Confession,^'  "the  Galilean  Confession,"  "the 
Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England," 
and  "the  Articles  of  Kelision  of  the  Methodist 


80  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


church/'  and  adds,  "the  same  doctrine  is  main- 
tained in  the  Bohemian,  the  Saxon,  and  all  the 
others,^^  and  concludes,  "  the  Catechisms  and  stan- 
dard writers  (p.  96)  maintain  the  same  doctrine' ' 
(pp.  92, 93).  This  is  a  startling  array  of  "  testimony" 
surely,  if  it  be  testimony.  But,  in  the  first  place, 
it  will  be  hard  to  enable  many  of  "the  million" 
to  understand  to  wJiat  Paedo-Baptist  churches  all 
these  "Catechisms"  and  "Confessions"  belong  — 
to  what  extent  many  of  them  are  evangelical  — 
and  so  much  of  this  "  testimony"  must  be  of  no 
weight  to  them.  In  the  second  place,  the  Doctor 
misrepresents  the  Arminian  and  evangelical  por- 
tion in  the  above  churches,  especially  in  the 
Church  of  England,  who  maintain  sound  and 
scriptural  views  of  infant  baptism.  In  the  third 
place,  "  the  various  classes  of  Methodists,  Congre- 
gationalists,  and  Presbyterians  in  this  country 
and  in  Europe,"  as  distinct  and  entire  evangelical 
churches,  maintain  sound  and  scriptural  views  of 
infant  baptism.  To  refer  particularly  to  the 
Methodists  alone  in  this  country  and  in  England  : 
they  interpret  their  Articles  of  Religion  in  har- 
mony with  regeneration  by  the  Spirit,  and  their 
interpretation  is  what  they  "  teach,"  when  they 
"  administer  or  defend  infant  baptism."  The 
"  Catechisms"  of  the  Methodists  in  this  country 

i 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  81 


and  in  England  flatly  contradict  the  charge  of  the 
Doctor.  In  the  Catechism  (written  by  Richard 
Watson,  "  a  standard  writer'^  of  the  Methodists) 
adopted  by  the  entire  "Wesleyan  Connection  ixT 
England,  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
North  and  South,  in  this  country,  the  children 
are  taught : 

"  What  is  the  outward  and  visible  sign  or  form 
of  baptism  ? 

"  The  application  of  water  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
(Mat.  28  :  19.) 

"  What  is  the  inward  and  spiritual  grace  signi- 
fied by  this  ? 

"  Our  being  cleansed  from  sin,  and  becoming 
new  creatures  in  Christ  Jesus  (Acts  22  :  16). 
Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins, 
calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord. 

"What  are  the  actual  privileges  of  baptized 
persons  ? 

"  They  are  made  members  of  the  visible  church 
of  Christ :  their  gracious  relation  to  him  as  the 
second  Adam,  as  the  Mediator  of  the  new  cove- 
nant, is  solemnly  ratified  by  divine  appointment ; 
and  they  are  thereby  recognised  as  having  a  claim 
to  all  those  spiritual  blessings  of  which  they  are 
the  proper  subjects. 


82  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


"  What  doth  your  baptism  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  oblige  you 
to  do? 

"My  baptism  obliges  me,  first,  to  renounce 
the  devil  and  all  his  works,  the  pomps  and  vani- 
ties of  this  wicked  world,  and  all  the  sinful  lusts 
of  the  flesh;  secondly,  that  I  should  believe  all 
the  articles  of  the  Christian  faith;  and  thirdly, 
that  I  should  keep  God's  holy  will  and  command- 
ments, and  walk  in  the  same  all  the  days  of  my 
life/^ 

Now,  what  is  the  interpretation  all  the  Metho- 
dists in  the  world  give  to  these  statements  ?  That 
baptism  is  a  sign,  and  not  an  efficient  cause  of 
grace.  That  cleansing  from  sin,  and  becoming 
new  creatures,  follow  in  cases  dying  in  infancy, 
which  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  view  of 
the  free  grace  of  God  in  the  vicarious  death  of 
Christ,  "the  second  Adam,  the  Mediator  of  the 
new  covenant,'^  which  baptism  solemnly,  sensibly, 
and  formally  ratifies.  That  all  infants,  living  and 
subsequently  performing  all  the  conditions  of  the 
covenant,  have  a  "  claim  to  all  the  spiritual  bless- 
ings'' of  the  covenant,  and  this  prospective  claim 
is  formally  and  solemnly  "recognised'^  in  infant 
baptism.  And  that  all  infants,  living,  are 
"  obliged"  to  renounce  the  vanities  of  the  world. 


INFANT     BAPTISM. 


believe  all  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  and  obey 
God  all  the  days  of  their  life ;  which  obligations 
are  set  forth  prospectively  in  infant  baptism.  Not 
one  word  in  all  this,  that  infants  in  baptism  are 
regenerated  and  ''cleansed  from  the  defilements 
of  original  sin." 

And  in  the  Catechism  composed  by  Bishop 
Capers,  and  published  by  the  Methodist  Church, 
for  the  use  of  Methodist  Missions,  and  taught 
even  to  thousands  of  black  children  on  the  planta- 
tions in  the  Southern  country,  the  children  are 
instructed  as  follows  : 

"  What  is  baptism  ? 

''Baptism  is  a  sign  of  the  grace  of  God  that 
makes  us  Christians. 

"  Does  baptism  make  us  Christians  ? 

"  No  :  water  cannot  make  us  Christians  :  grace 
makes  us  Christians. 

"Who  works  that  grace  in  us  to  make  us 
Christians  ? 

"The  Holy  Ghost." 

Here,  then,  is  a  flat  denial  of  the  charge,  that 
the  Methodists  teach  in  their  Catechisms,  that  in- 
fants are  regenerated  m  baptism,  or  li/  baptism. 
Thus,  the  premises  of  the  Doctor,  such  as,  "  with 
the  Methodists  baptism  is  the  means  by  lofiich 
their  infants  are  regenerated  and  born  again"  — 


84  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


''  baptism  and  regeneration  are  not  esteemed  by 
tbem  as  separate  and  distinct  things,  but  essen- 
tially identical" — being  false,  bis  conclusion  — 
^'tbe  doctrine  of  infant  baptism  is  consequently  in 
direct  conflict  witb  tbe  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
regeneration"  —  is  also  false  —  and  so  is  exhibited 
the  insufi&ciency  of  his  "  ample  testimony"  to 
make  out  an  ''evil"  in  infant  baptism  in  the 
Methodist  church.  When  we  "  administer  or  de- 
fend infant  baptism"  we  neither  "  apparently"  nor 
really  "  forget  our  evangelical  principles."  In  our 
Catechisms,  in  our  Articles  of  Keligion,  and  in 
our  Baptismal  forms,  we  always  "  esteem  baptism 
and  regeneration  as  separate  and  distinct  things," 
and  never  ''  declare  them  essentially  identified." 
Indeed,  we  forbear  to  inquire  into  the  spirit  or  the 
motives  with  which  the  Doctor  made  the  accusa- 
tion whicli  we  have  just  now  denied  and  dis- 
proved. Whatever  may  have  been  his  spirit  or 
his  motives — if  good,  they  have  been  perverted 
—  if  bad,  they  have  been  exposed.  That  he 
cannot  sincerely  believe  his  accusation  to  be  true, 
he  has  "the  most  gratifying  evidence"  in  his 
concessions  already  before  the  reader ;  and  that  he 
sincerely  believes  we  teach  regeneration  hy  the 
Spirit,  is  demonstrated  by  his  own  conduct,  for 
he  cheerfully  embraces  every  proper  opportunity 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  85 


to  immerse  every  person  regenerated  by  tlie  Spirit 
under  the  ^^  teaching"  and  labors  of  the  Methodist 
churclj,  and  so  initiates  all  such  into  his  church, 
authenticated  and  esteemed  as  good  and  true 
^'  disciples"  as  any  in  his  own  communion.  And 
if  he  will  nurse  them  well,  no  matter  —  only 
remind  them  occasionally  of  their  "  true  mother," 
lest  they  forget  her  —  reproach  her  —  despise  her 
—  as  many  old  Baptist  laymen,  and  Baptist 
writers  do.  Take  care  of  these  ^'  habes  in  Christ," 
Doctor:  they  are  our  arguments  that  you  sin- 
cerely believe  we  maintain  ^^regeneration  by  "On^ 
Spirit.^'  Take  care  of  these  ^Hamhs,^'  Doctor: 
they  are  our  proofs  that  infant  baptism  is  not  an 
"  evil"  among  the  Methodists.  Bead  these  "  living 
epistles,"  Doctor :  they  are  our  ^'  testimony"  with 
which  to  refute  your  book. 

VI.  The  sixth  general  argument  of  the  Doctor 
is:  "Infant  baptism  is  an  evil,  because,  arro- 
gating HEREDITARY  CLAIMS  TO  THE  COVENANT 
OF  GRACE,  IT  FALSIFIES  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  UNI- 
VERSAL depravity"  (p.  98). 

Worse  and  worse  —  if  we  understand  the  Doc- 
tor. Let  us  proceed  a  few  steps  farther,  that  we 
may  clearly  understand  him.  "  All  the  blessings 
of  the  gospel  of  Christ  are  claimed  by  our  Peedo- 
Baptist   brethren   for  all   their   infant   children. 


86  INFANT     BAPTISM 


Such  is  the  doctrine  on  this  subject  which  uni- 
versally prevails  among  Presbyterians,  Congrega- 
tionalistSj  and  all  other  Calvinists.  By  theju  it  is 
distinctly  avowed;  and  it  is  held  with  more  or 
less  ambiguity,  by  every  class  of  Paedo-Baptists'* 
(Ibid).  He  says,  "this  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Methodist  church  in  the  United  States"  (p.  100). 
After  making  sundry  quotations  from  Paedo-Bap- 
tist  authors  to  prove  that  this  doctrine  is  taught 
ia  the  Church  of  England,  the  Episcopal  church 
in  the  United  States,  and  by  the  Presbyterians  in 
England  and  America,  he  concludes,  "  from  these 
expositions  we  learn,  that  all  children  of  believers 
are  by  hereditary  descent  entitled  to  the  privileges 
of  membership  in  the  house  of  God,  and  to  the 
promises  of  salvation.  These  are  prerogatives 
arising  exclusively  from  their  hereditary  relations. 
Their  parents  are  holy;  therefore  their  children 
are  holy'^  (pp.  101,  102).  In  the  first  place, 
every  author  he  quotes,  places  the  right  of  infants 
to  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  upon  the  free 
grace  of  God,  though  some  of  them  limit  the 
right  to  baptism  to  descent  from  believing  parents ; 
and  this  the  Doctor  knew,  as  he  had  read  at  least 
one  authority,  Goode,  whom  he  quoted  as  au- 
thority. Consequently  none  are  horn  holy.  Some 
Psedo-Baptists,  such   as   Papists   and   Puseyites, 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  87 


maintain,  that  all  infants,  when  ho,pt{zed,  are 
regenerated  or  made  holy,  but  even  these  corrupt 
churches  never  maintained,  that  any  infants  are 
horn  holy.  Some  Pasdo-Baptists  in  the  Church 
of  England  maintain,  that  elect  infants,  and  the 
infants  of  elect  parents,  are  regenerated  or  made 
holy  in  baptism  ;  but  none  of  them  maintain,  that 
ani/  infants  are  born  holy.  The  Doctor  certainly 
can  see,  that  right  to  baptism,  and  right  to  rege- 
neration, from  hereditary  descent,  are  very  dif- 
ferent things.  We  believe  both  rights  are  ground- 
less. 

The  Doctor  has  also  erred  egregiously  in  stating 
the  question.  Universal  depravity  is  maintained 
by  all  the  churches  from  which  he  quotes  —  some 
of  them  maintaining  that  the  children  of  believing 
parents  are  entitled  to  baptism,  and  that  such  are 
regenerated  or  made  holy  by  the  Spirit  in  baptism 
— T-of  course  they  were  unholy  before  they  were 
baptized.  They  maintain,  that  all  infants  are 
depraved;  but  some,  namely,  those  of  believing 
parents,  are  entitled  to  baptism,  and  in  baptism 
obtain  regeneration;  but  that  others,  not  of  be- 
lieving parents,  are  not  entitled  to  baptism,  and 
so  continue  unholy :  and  hence  that  all,  by  na- 
ture, are  unholy,  which  is  the  doctrine  of  univer- 
sal  depravity.     Secondly,  the   Doctor   positively 


88  INFANT     BAPTISM 


contradicts  himself.  In  the  two  preceding  chap- 
ters of  his  "evils/'  he  quotes  from  these  very 
churches  to  prove  that  they  maintain  that  infants 
are  regenerated  or  made  holy  in  haptism,  and 
consequently  that  they  are  not  holy  in  conse- 
quence of  hereditary  descent.  Hear  him.  To 
prove  that  "  infant  baptism  contradicts  the  great 
fundamental  principle  of  justification  by  faith/'  he 
quotes  Wall  as  saying,  "  Most  Paedo-Baptists  hold 
that  Grod  by  his  Spirit  does,  at  the  time  of^KV- 
TISM,  seal  and  apply  to  the  infant  that  is  there 
dedicated  to  him  the  promises  of  the  covenant  of 
which  he  is  capable,  viz. :  adoption,  pardon  of  sins, 
translation  from,  the  state  of  nature  to  that  of 
GRACE."  Again :  "  The  justification,  regenera- 
tion, and  adoption  of  little  children  haptized, 
confers  upon  them  a  state  of  salvation."  Again : 
"  Archbishop  Usher  writes  thus  :  *  The  branches 
of  this  reconciliation  [received  by  infants  in  their 
baptism']  are  justification  and  adoption.' "  And 
the  Doctor  adds  :  "  So  teach  all  the  other  divines, 
and  all  the  Protestant  Confessions  of  Faith  and 
Catechisms"  (pp.  67,  68).  And  after  quoting 
from  the  "Augsburg/'  and  "Westminster  Confer 
sion,"  "The  Thirty-Nine  Articles,"  and  thr^ 
"  Methodist  Articles  of  Eeligion/'  he  adds,  "And 
Episcopalians  and  Methodists  affirm  that  hy  hap- 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  89 


t'ism  the  new  birth,  tlie  forgiveness  of  sins,  and 
adoption,  are  all  to  the  child  visibly  signed  and 
sealed.  The  child  therefore  in  baptism  is  par- 
doned of  sin,  is  regenerated,  is  adopted,  is  re- 
ceived into  the  church,  received  into  the  favor  of 
Grod,  and  saved  in  heaven'^  (p.  76).  And  con- 
cludes :  "  These  are  the  expositions  of  standard 
writers  among  Paedo-Baptists,  of  all  classes,  ex- 
planatory of  the  effica<iy  of  baptism  as  taught  in 
their  Confessions"  (p.  80).  Again  :  to  prove  that 
infant  baptism  "is  in  conflict  with  the  doctrine 
of  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit,'^  he  says, 
"our  brethren  of  the  Protestant  denominations 
teach,  that  we  are  regenerated  by  baptism" 
(p.  86).  He  quotes  one  Confession  as  stating, 
"  Baptism  is,  by  the  institution  of  the  Lord,  the 
law  of  regeneration.^^  Another ,  "  born  again  by 
baptism  and  the  Holy  Spirit."  Another  :  "  rege- 
neration is  offered  in  baptism.''  And  so  on. 
And  continues :  "  with  the  Methodists  baptism  is 
the  means  by  which  their  infants  are  regenerated 
and  born  again,''  and  so  of  "elect  infants" 
among  the  Pnesbyterians.  And  he  concludes : 
"  They  all  teach,  therefore,  that  we  are  regene- 
rated in  baptism."  Here,  then,  we  have  a  flat 
contradiction.  If  the  Doctor  proves  by  his  Paedo- 
Baptist  authorities,  that  infant  baptism  contradicts 

8* 


90  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


the  doctrines  of  justification  by  faith,  and  regene- 
ration by  the  Holy  Spirit,  then  he  cannot  prove 
that  infant  baptism  contradicts  the  doctrine  of 
universal  depravity,  as  is  evident  from  the  use 
the  Doctor  makes  of  authorities.  Thirdly,  the 
Psedo-Baptist  authorities,  adduced  by  the  Doctor, 
prove  the  doctrine  of  universal  depravity,  and  so 
the  Doctor's  argument  is  refuted  by  his  own  wit- 
nesses. Fourthly,  indeed  the  Doctor  concedes  all 
this  himself.  "But  our  [Paedo-Baptist]  brethren 
themselves  hold,  and  emphatically  teach  universal 
depravity^^  (p.  103).  And  he  quotes  from  the 
Articles  of  Religion  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal, 
and  Methodist  Episcopal  Churches,  in  proof  of 
this.  And  adds,  "  Calvinism,  in  all  its  sects, 
speaks"  the  same  doctrine ;  and  concludes,  "  All 
other  evangelical  denominations  hold  the  same 
principles''  (p.  10 1).  These  concessions  the  Doc- 
tor was  compelled  to  make,  and  they  are  fatal  to 
his  argument,  because  it  is  evident  that  infant 
baptism  does  not  "  falsify  the  doctrine  of  univer- 
sal depravity." 

When  by  numerous  concession^,  and  palpable 
contradictions,  the  Doctor  refutes  his  own  argu- 
ment, it  would  be  needless  to  detain  the  reader  in 
considering  additional  proof  That  is,  when,  by 
his  own  concessions,  he  proves  the  inaccuracy  of 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  91 


his  premises,  and  by  Psedo-Baptist  authorities 
refutes  his  accusations  against  them,  nothing  re- 
mains but  to  reject  the  premises  as  false,  and  the 
accusations  as  untrue. 

The  truth  is,  infant  baptism  recognises  the 
entire  moral  depravity  of  infants,  all  infants, 
without  exception;  and  imports,  in  all  cases, 
dying  in  infancy,  the  necessity  of  regeneration  by 
the  Spirit,  in  order  to  their  qualification  for 
heaven;  and  living  till  responsible  age,  the  ne- 
cessity still  of  regeneration  by  the  Spirit,  which  is 
to  be  obtained  by  repentance  and  faith :  all  the 
way,  it  implies  universal  depravity."  Infant  bap- 
tism, then,  is  not  an  "evil"  upon  the  ground 
which  the  Doctor  assumes  —  and  we  pass  to  the 
consideration  of  his  seventh  general  argument. 

VII.   "Infant  baptism  is  an  evil,  because  IT 

NECESSARILY   ENTAILS    CORRUPTIONS   UPON   THE 

church"  (p.  109). 

In  endeavoring  to  sustain  this  position,  the 
Doctor  expends  his  best  energies  —  but  in  vain. 
His  first  proof  is :  "  Infant  baptism  corrupts  the 
church  in  her  doctrines.'^  He  says,  this  has  been 
proved  "  in  the  preceding  chapters"  of  his  book. 
Not  at  all;  for  we  have  seen,  in  the  preceding 
sections  of  this  reply,  that  his  "  chapters"  contain 
a  mass  of  false  issues,  misrepresentations,  perver- 


92  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


sioaSj  concessions,  contradictions,  and  illogic^ 
conclusions,  which  it  is  surprising  he  ever  should 
have  published  to  the  world,  and  which,  having 
reviewed,  he  did  not  correct.  He  refers  to  the 
doctrines  of  "justification  by  faith,^^  "regenera- 
tion by  the  Spirit,"  and  "universal  depravit/^  — 
all  of  which  are  maintained  uncorrupted  by  the 
evangelical  Paedo-Baptist  churches  —  and  this  the 
Doctor,  again  and  again,  as  we  have  seen,  con- 
cedes. 

His  next  proof  is :  "  Infant  baptism  also  cor- 
rupts the  church  in  her  membership."  We  reply : 
in  whatever  country,  and  in  whatever  church, 
baptized  infants  are  regarded  in  subsequent  life 
as  members  of  the  church  of  Christ — there  infant 
baptism  is  a  subject  of  abuse,  and  is  perverted 
from  its  original,  apostolic  design.  In  truly  evan- 
gelical churches,  infants  wlio  subsequently  to  their 
baptism,  at  the  proper  time,  fail  to  repent  and 
believe,  are  not  regarded  as  members  of  the 
church  (nor  do  they  regard  themselves  as  such), 
any  more  than  adults  are- in  the  Baptist  church, 
who,  after  their  baptism,  commit  sin,  and  back- 
slide from  the  faith.  The  very  quotation  which 
the  Doctor  makes  from  Dr.  Miller  proves  this. 
"The  only  question  they  can  ask  themselves  is 
not.  Shall  we  enter  the  church?  but,   Shall  we 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  93 


continue  in  it''  —  by  repentance  and  faith  and 
obedience,  according  to  the  prospective  requisi- 
tions of  our  baptism  in  infancy  ?  What  the  Doc- 
tor says  about  the  practice  of  churches  ^^  on  the 
other  side  of  the  Atlantic,"  and  of  high-churchism 
in  this  country,  has  no  more  to  do  with  the 
practice  of  the  truly  evangelical  Psedo-Baptist 
churches,  than  Popery  there,  and  high-churchism 
here,  have  to  do  with  the  pure  doctrines  of  the 
evangelical  churches  there  and  here,  since  infant 
baptism,  and  other  institutions  of  pure  Chris- 
tianity, are  there  abused  and  interwoven  with 
many  gross  and  fatal  corruptions. 

His  next  proof  is:  ^Mnfant  baptism  corrupts 
the  church  in  the  spirit  hy  which  she  is  ani- 
mated." This  he  attempts  to  support  as  follows : 
First,  ''  the  spirit  with  which  infant  baptism 
inspires  the  church  is  corrupt  and  unholy."  This 
is  but  a  reiteration  of  the  proposition  to  be  proved. 
Secondly,  "it  is  fully  justified  by  the  history  of 
Popery  in  all  ages."  Evangelical  Pasdo-Baptist 
churches  have  nothing  to  do  with  that,  since 
Popery  has  corrupted  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  justification  by  faith,  and  many  other 
evangelical  doctrines  of  Christianity  —  and  there- 
fore, upon  the  Doctor's  own  showing,  because 
Popery  has  done  all  this,  evangelical  churches, 


94  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


including  the  Baptist  churchy  will  do  it  —  a  con- 
clusion from  which  we  recoil,  as  well  as  he. 
Thirdly,  "the  progressive  developments  of  Pro- 
testantism increase  its  force."  This  we  deny  — 
and  the  denial  is  equivalent  to  the  affirmation. 
But  we  go  farther,  and  prove  the  affirmation  to  be 
false.  The  progressive  developments  of  sound 
Protestantism  are  opposed  to  all  corruption,  both 
in  church  and  state.  This  has  now  become  an 
axiom  of  history.  Sound  Protestantism,  "  the  re- 
ligion of  the  Bible,''  *  is  the  life  of  the  church, 
and  the  foundation  of  our  republic.  Churches 
that  call  themselves  Protestant  may,  it  is  true, 
abuse  and  pervert  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism 
—  but  evangelical  Psedo-Baptist  churches  are  not 
to  be  classed  with  them,  any  more  than  the  evan- 
gelical Baptists  are  to  be  classed  with  Camp- 
bellites.  Nor  are  they  to  be  held  any  more 
responsible  for  the  heresies  and  corruptions  of 
certain  so-called  Protestant  communities,  than  Dr. 
Howell  is  for  the  heresies  and  corruptions  of 
Alexander  Campbell — and  therefore  the  tendency 
of  evangelical  Pasdo-Baptist  churches  is  no  more 
to  be  determined  by  the  tendency  of  corrwpt 
Paedo-Baptist  churches,  than  the  tendency  of  the 
Doctor's  church  is  to  be  determined  by  the  ten- 

*  Ctiillingwortli. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  95 


dency  of  the  sect  of  Alexander  Campbell.  That 
is  to  say,  both  the  Baptists  and  the  Campbeliites 
practise  immersion,  but  they  each  give  a  different 
meaning  to  it.  And  so  evangelical  and  corrupt 
churches  practise  infant  baptism  —  the  one  pre- 
serving it  in  its  purity  and  simplicity,  and  the 
other  subjecting  it  to  abuse  and  corruption.  This 
is  but  another  example  of  the  Doctor's  mode 
of  reasoning  —  a  particular  conclusion  from  uni- 
versal premises.  The  question  should  be  stated 
in  this  form  :  Do  tbe  ''  progressive  developments" 
of  evangelical  Pjedo-Baptist  churches  '^ increase 
the  force"  of  the  "corruption"  to  which  the  Doc- 
tor refers  ?  TVe  answer — no — not  an  iota.  Place 
the  evangelical  Pgedo-Baptist  churches  upon  their 
own  merits,  and  their  whole  history,  from  the 
beginning  to  the  present,  is  a  refutation  of  the 
Doctor's  allegation.  In  them  there  are  no  signs 
of  corruption :  in  evangelical  doctrines  and  insti- 
tutions they  remain  unchanged;  and  in  these 
there  are  no  sources  of  corruption.  Consequently, 
so  long  as  they  continue  evangelical,  their  "  pro- 
gressive developments"  can  never  originate,  much 
less  "increase  the  force  of  corruption'^  on  the 
subject  of  infant  baptism.  Not  a  single  develop- 
ment of  these  churches  has,  in  any  degree,  or  in* 
any  respect,  impaired  the  force,  or  despoiled  the 


96  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


beauty  and  purity  of  infant  baptism  ;  and  it  is 
mere  assumption  to  say,  that  tbeir  progressive 
developments  have  done  either,  or  will  do  either 
in  future.  Fourthly,  "They  —  the  Neology  of 
Lutheranism,  the  Puseyism  of  Episcopacy,  and 
the  Universalism  and  Unitarianism  of  Presbyte- 
rianism  and  Congregationalism  —  are  all  the  legi- 
timate fruits  of  infant  baptism,  but  for  which 
they  never  could  have  existed'^  (p.  112).  A 
superficial  acquaintance  with  the  history  of  the 
origin  of  these  corruptions,  if  he  possessed  it, 
ought  to  have  taught  the  Doctor  better  than  this^ 
and  prevented  him  from  adopting  this  miserable 
view  of  infant  baptism.  Persons  acquainted  with 
the  origin  of  these  corruptions  know  better,  and 
we  will  not  detain  the  reader  with  any  historical 
quotations,  or  specific  statements  on  the  subject. 
But  we  shall  off'er  other  evidence  equally  satisfac- 
tory with  what  an  historical  statement  would  be. 
It  is  denied  that  Neology  is  a  corruption  of  Lu- 
theyanism,  and  Puseyism  of  Episcopacy,  and  Uni- 
versalism and  Unitarianism  of  Presbyterianism ; 
but  for  argument's  sake,  we  admit  it  all.  And 
yef  we  want  the  proof  that  they  are  "  the  legiti- 
mate fruits  of  infant  baptism!'  —  that,  "  but  for 
infant  baptism,  they  never  could  have  existed." 
Let  us   apply  this  mode  of  reasoning  to  a  few 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  97 


examples  or  facts  of  history.  Many  heresies  arose 
in  the  Apostolic  church;  therefore  they  were 
"  the  legitimate  fruits  of  infant  baptism"  in  the 
Apostolic  church,  and  "-  but  for  infant  baptism" 
in  the  Apostolic  church,  "  they  never  could  have 
existed."  The  Doctor's  logic  demonstrates  that 
infant  baptism  existed  in  the  Apostolic  church, 
though  at  the  same  time  it  proves  that  Christ  and 
his  Apostles  sanctioned  a  corruption,  and  the 
cause  of  heresies  !  However,  the  Doctor  gives  us 
a  neio  method  to  determine  the  Apostolic  origin, 
authority,  and  prevalence  of  infant  baptism,  though 
we  decline  the  method,  and  accept  the  fact.  Again : 
Campbellism  arose  in  the  Baptist  church  —  for 
Alexander  Campbell  was  a  Baptist  when  he  con- 
ceived his  heresy,  and  did  immense  harm  to  the 
Baptist  church  before  he  left  it — therefore  Camp- 
bellism is  '^the  legitimate  fruit"  of  immersion, 
and  "  but  for"  immersion  it  "  never  could  have 
existed."  The  Doctor  will  not  admit  that  this  is 
a  ^'legitimate"  conclusion  —  yet  in  one  sense  it  is 
true,  because  without  immersion  Campbellism 
could  not  exist,  for  Campbellites  practise  immer- 
sion as  indispensable  to  salvation.  Once  more : 
the  celebrated  Elnathan  Winchester  was  a  Baptist 
minister,  and  then  became  a  Universalist  preacher, 
and  was  the  founder  of  Universalism  in  this  coun- 


98  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


try  —  therefore  Universalism  is  ^Hhe  legitimate 
fruit'*  of  immersion  and  dose  communioUy  and 
but  for  these  Universalism  '^  never  could  have 
existed/'  These  are  all  "legitimate"  conclusions 
from  premises  similar  to  those  employed  by  the 
Doctor  against  infant  baptism.  But  their  ab- 
surdity is  so  palpable  that  they  must  be  rejected 
at  once  —  and  so  also  we  must  reject  the  Doctor's. 
But  we  have  another  proof  of  the  fallacy  of  the 
Doctor's  reasoning.  The  strongest  opposers  of 
German  "  Neology,  Puseyism,  Universalism,  and 
Unitarianism/'  are  found  in  the  evangelical  Pa3do- 
Baptist  churches — and  some  of  them  in  the  very 
churches  in  which,  he  says,  these  corruptions 
arose  —  which  is  positive  evidence  that  they  have 
not  become  corrupted  by  infant  baptism.  Finally : 
a  reaction  has  taken  place  in  Germany,  and  the  evan- 
gelical Psedo-Baptist  party  in  the  controversy,  among 
whom  Tholnck  is  prominent,  have  triumphed,  and 
Neology  there  is  waning  down  to  fruitless  eflforts 
—  Puseyism,  in  our  country  at  least,  is  losing 
ground  every  day  —  and  Universalism  and  Unita- 
rianism are  annually  diminishing  in  strength  at 
the  North,  and  are  scarcely  known  at  the  South, 
except  in  some  of  our  populous  towns  and  cities, 
where  they  are  few  and  feeble,  and  vanishing 
away  —  while  all  over  the  land,  from  the  Canadas 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  99 


to  Texas,  and  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific, 
the  evangelical  Psedo-Baptist  churches,  with  no 
mark  of  decay,  decline,  or  decrepitude,  are  ex- 
tending in  every  direction,  with  increasing  vigor 
annually,  and  with  increasing  numhers,  opposing 
all  forms  of  religious  heresies  and  corruptions,  and 
proclaiming  the  "  glorious  gospel  of  the  blessed 
God,"  in  "  the  demonstration  of  the  Spirit  and  in 
power"  —  all  the  time  maintaining  uncorrupted 
the  Apostolic  doctrine  of  infant  baptism.  These 
are  facts,  and  "  the  million"  go  for  facts  in  settling 
the  truth  or  force  of  an  argument. 

Before  we  close  this  section,  we  will  notice  one 
of  the  most  extraordinary  assumptions  upon  re- 
cord. It  is  incidentally  thrown  in  at  a  time  when 
the  author  thinks  it  will  have  the  most  decisive 
effect  upon  the  "million."  Having  represented 
the  "alarming  and  disastrous  evils" — these  are 
his  words  —  of  infant  baptism,  and  having  proved, 
as  he  thinks,  that  the  tendency  of  evangelical 
Paedo-Baptist  churches  is  to  "inevitable  destruc- 
tion," he  exclaims,  "  But  the  Baptist  church 
cannot  thus  be  corrupted  and  destroyed"  (p.  112). 
All  other  churches  upon  earth  have  in  them  the 
elements  of  progressive  corruption,  and  are  fore- 
doomed to  destruction  —  but  the  Baptist  church 
is  pure  in  nature^  and  proof  against  destruction  — 


100  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


yea,  ste  cannot  be  corrupted  —  she  cannot  be 
destroyed  :  this  is  the  assumption. 

Admitting  that  the  Baptist  church  is  now 
entirely  pure  —  which  we  do  not  —  this  is  as- 
suming far  too  much;  it  is  far  too  much  for 
any  church  to  assume;  it  is  assuming  what 
Christ  and  his  Apostles  never  assumed  for  the 
Christian  church  which  they  founded.  Angels 
fell.  Adam  fell.  The  patriarchal  church  became 
corrupt,  and  but  eight  souls  of  all  the  ante-delu- 
vian  church  remained  uncorrupted.  The  Jewish 
church,  again  and  again,  became  corrupt,  and  at 
the  coming  of  Christ  was  in  a  state  of  very  great 
corruption.  The  churches  at  Jerusalem,  Corinth, 
Rome,  Galatia,  Ephesus,  Philippi,  Laodicea,  Co- 
losse,  Philadelphia,  Sardis,  Pergamos,  Thyatira, 
Thessalonica,  and  all  other  churches  planted  by 
the  Apostles,  became  corrupt,  and  have  long  since 
vanished  from  the  world. 

There  are  certain  causes  which,  if  they  exist  in 
any  church,  will  certainly  corrupt  it,  whatever 
may  be  the  purity  of  its  doctrines  and  ordinances. 
We  shall  mention  a  few. 

1.  An  unholy  ministry.  Such  a  ministry  will 
be  governed  by  worldly  motives,  and  preach  for 
worldly  advantage  or  popular  applause.  They 
will  shrink  from  any  duties  likely  to  injure  their 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  101 


worldly  reputation  or  worldly  interests.  They 
will  neglect  the  business  of  the  church  for  their 
own  private  business.  They  will  not  exercise  the 
proper  discipline  of  the  church  lest  the  people 
refuse  to  pay  them  their  dues.  They  will  sell  the 
cause  of  Christ,  and  his  honor,  and  their  own 
souls,  and  the  souls  of  men,  for  money.  They 
are  barren  in  the  works  of  charity,  and  destitute 
of  zeal,  and  the  church  of  God  will  languish  and 
die  on  their  hands.  2.  An  unholy  membership 
will  corrupt  and  destroy  the  church,  especially 
where  an  unholy  laity  have  a  share  in  consti- 
tuting rules  and  regulations  for  the  government 
of  the  church.  3.  The  spirit  of  worldly  compro- 
mise, whether  in  the  preachers  or  the  members, 
will  do  it.  4.  Unauthorized  and  unscriptural  in- 
novations upon  the  doctrines  and  ordinances  of 
pure  Christianity,  will  do  it.  5.  A  general  ne- 
glect of  proper  church  discipline  will  do  it. 
6.  The  want  of  "brotherly  love"  will  do  it  — 
and  the  church  become  enslaved  under  the  cor- 
ruptions of  bigotry  and  exclusiveness.  In  a  word, 
may  not  temptation  corrupt  the  members,  and 
ambition  destroy  the  rulers  of  the  church?  Is 
the  church  proof  against  the  seductions  of  wealth 
and  power  in  a  popular  age  ?  May  it  not  depend 
more  upon  its  wealth,  intelligence,  and  growing 
9* 


102  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


influence,  than  spirituality  in  doctrinej  experience, 
and  practice  ?  May  it  not  exult  more  in  its  in- 
creasing numbers,  and  worldly  power,  than  in  the 
character  of  its  converts,  and  the  favor  of  Grod  ? 
May  it  not  soften,  as  we  have  said,  the  rigor  of 
its  wise  and  healthful  discipline,  observe  with  in- 
difference and  mere  formality  its  solemn  and  holy 
sacraments,  compromit  the  truth  of  its  divine  and 
evangelical  precepts  and  requisitions,  and  allow 
the  spirit  of  the  world  gradually  to  diffuse  itself 
throughout  its  membership,  till  watchfulness, 
prayer,  self-denial,  and  zeal,  are  discontinued,  and 
not  a  vestige  of  its  former  simplicity  and  purity 
remains?  Is  the  Baptist  church  —  is  any  church 
of  Christ  —  inaccessible  to  intemperance,  fashion, 
love  of  money,  love  of  pleasure,  love  of  ease,  and 
the  love  of  the  world  in  a  thousand  forms  ?  Does 
the  Doctor  look  down  from  his  pulpit  upon  a  pure 
and  holy  church  throughout  ?  Does  he  not  be- 
moan the  presence  of  many  tares  —  rank  tares, 
from  time  to  time,  and  here  and  there?  Does  he 
not  often  lift  his  waroing  voice  to  arrest  the 
startling  progress  of  corruption  in  many  forms, 
and  rouse  from  their  lethargy  those  that  are  '^  at 
ease  in  Zion"  around  him  ?  Does  he  not  some- 
times, though  not  as  often  as  he  should,  exercise 
discipline   in    excluding    improper   and    corrupt 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  103 


members  from  his  church,  who  were  not  baptized 
in  infancy,  and  who,  with  him,  believe  infant 
baptism  to  be  a  great  and  intolerable  evil  ?  If 
infant  baptism  were  the  only  cause  of  corruption 
to  the  church,  then,  it  is  true,  the  Baptist  church 
can  never  become  corrupt  —  so  long  as  it  opposes 
its  adoption  and  practice.  But  this  is  not  the 
fact,  as  we  have  just  seen ;  and  hence  the  Doctor 
assumes  too  much  in  defence  of  the  integrity, 
purity,  and  perpetuity  of  the  Baptist  church  —  he 
assumes  what  is  not  true. 

Further:  as  the  Baptist  church  may  be  cor- 
rupted and  destroyed  by  causes,  among  which  in- 
fant baptism  cannot  be  numbered,  so  evangelical 
Paedo-Baptist  churches  may  be  corrupted  and 
destroyed  by  the  same  causes,  and  then  what 
advantage  has  the  Baptist  church  over  the  evan- 
gelical Paedo-Baptist  churches  ?  Time  alone  can 
determine,  and  time  enough  has  already  elapsed 
since  the  origin  of  the  modern  Baptist  church, 
and  the  evangelical  Paedo-Baptist  churches,  to 
demonstrate  that  the  Methodist  church  at  least, 
in  numbers,  wealth,  intelligence,  influence,  and 
pious  labors,  has  surpassed  the  Baptist  church, 
though  it  was  not  founded  by  John  Wesley  in 
England  till  1739,  nor  in  America  till  1766, 
under  the  preaching  of  Philip  Embury,  in  the 


104  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


city  of  New  York,  wliile  the  Baptist  cliurcli,  the 
Baptists  themselves  asserting,*  was  founded  in 
England  in  1602,  and  in  America,  at  Providence, 
hj  Boger  Williams,  in  1639.  One  hundred  years, 
or,  if  the  Doctor  chooses,  1800  years  (as  he  claims 
for  his  church  descent  from  the  Apostles),  in  ad- 
vance of  the  Methodist  church  as  to  time,  and  yet 
confessedly  surpassed  by  the  Methodist  church  I 
When  the  Baptist  church  shall  excel,  or  even 
overtake  the  Methodist  church,  in  these  respects, 
it  will  be  time  to  examine  into  the  true  causes  of 
the  astonishing  achievement.  However,  in  the 
consideration  of  the  causes  that  have  operated, 
and  still  operate,  in  the  promotion  of  the  pros- 
perity of  the  Baptist  church,  the  fruits  of  Metho- 
dist revivals,  and  Methodist  preaching,  are  to  be 
taken.  We  hesitate  not  to  say,  that  if  a  deduc- 
tion of  Methodist  converts,  now  in  the  Baptist 
churches,  in  city,  town,  country,  and  island,  were 
fairly  made,  a  very  material  difference  would  bo 
seen  in  the  present  result ;  and  if  it  were  possible 
to  estimate  the  extent  of  Methodist  influence  upon 
the  Baptist  church,  a  more  material  difference 
would  be  seen  exisiting  between  the  two  churches, 
standing  upon  their  individual  and  intrinsic  merits. 

*  Backus's  Chixrcli  BUst.  c.  1,  p.  19.    Benedict's  Hist,  of  Baptists, 
vol.  1,  -475. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  105 


But  we  are  willing  to  waive  the  consideration  of 
all  the  fruits  of  Baptist  proselytism  (and  this  is 
immense),  and  all  the  results  of  Methodist  influ- 
ence (and  this  is  immense  also),  upon  the  Baptist 
church,  and  with  these  helps  yielded  to  the  Bap- 
tist church,  submit  the  question,  whether  the 
Methodist  church  is  more  liable  to  corruption 
than  the  Baptist  ?  Does  not,  therefore,  the  Bap- 
tist church,  as  it  now  is,  owe  much  of  its  purity 
and  prosperity  to  the  Methodist  church  ?  Ought 
not  the  Baptist  church,  then,  for  its  own  sake,  to 
cultivate  a  practical  spirit  of  Christian  friendship 
and  intercourse  with  the  Methodist  church  ?  Is 
it  good  policy,  is  it  reasonable,  is  it  right,  for  Bap- 
tist ministers,  and  Baptist  newspapers,  and  the 
Baptist  Board  of  Publication,  to  send  forth  to  the 
world  treatises  and  pamphlets  and  articles,  in  un- 
compromising hostility  to  that  very  church  which 
has  contributed,  and  is  still  contributing,  so  much 
to  the  preservation  and  advancement  of  the  Bap- 
tist church  ?  Is  it  wise  ?  is  it  grateful  ?  is  it  chari- 
table? is  it  Christian?  What  was  the  motive  that 
originated  the  conception  of  the  Doctor's  book  of 
"  Evils  ?''  It  could  not  have  been  to  build  up, 
but,  at  a  single  stroke,  to  pull  down,  the  Paedo- 
Baptist  churches,  heretical  and  evangelical,  and  so 
enlarge  the  dimensions  of  the  Baptist  church  :  — •■ 


106  INTANT     BAPTISM. 


to  tave  ready  a  small  treatise  to  place  in  the 
hands  of  young  converts  in  times  of  revival  in 
other  churches,  that  a  strong  and  certain  direction 
might  be  given  to  the  Baptist  church:  —  to  ex- 
cite discontent  in  the  minds  of  many  already  asso- 
ciated with  other  churches,  and  incline  all  such  to 
withdraw,  and  commit  themselves  to  the  ''  liquid 
grave,^'  and  the  wide  open  arms  of  the  Baptist 
church :  —  to  set  up  a  defence  for  that  which  is 
indelicate  in  some,  and  doubtful  in  all  cases  — 
immersion — the  foundation  of  the  Baptist  church; 
—  to  oppose  most  strenuously  that  as  a  source  of 
many  "evils,''  namely,  infant  baptism,  which  is  a 
most  powerful  argument  against  immersion  :  —  to 
destroy  utterly,  if  possible,  that  which,  so  long  as 
it  exists,  and  to  the  extent  it  exists,  must  consti- 
tute the  strongest  opposition  to  the  assumptions 
of  the  Baptists  on  the  subject  of  baptism  —  to  de- 
stroy, we  repeat,  at  a  single  hlow^  the  whole  family 
of  evangelical  Fdedo-Baptist  churches.  It  was  a 
bold  manoeuvre,  but  badly  managed ;  and  however 
pure  and  honest  may  have  been  the  motive,  if 
such  was  his  motive,  frenzy  alone  must  have  in- 
spired him  with  courage.  Infant  baptism  and  the 
Baptist  church  can  never  be  reconciled :  one  or 
the  other  must  go  down  in  the  Doctor's  plan ;  and 
he  sets  himself  to  work,  day  and  night,  torturing 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  107 


his  brain  witli  schemes,  collectino-  and  inventing; 
materials,  and  obtaining  help  from  conversation 
and  books,  and  it  may  be,  from  correspondence, 
not  very  profound  in  any  case,  till  he  is  ready, 
with  the  formidable  array  of  "  twenty-one"  argu- 
ments, to  prepare  the  people,  by  ^^  the  million,"  to 
combine  for  the  utter  extinction  of  the  whole 
family  of  evangelical  Paedo-Baptist  churches.  Such 
a  motive  is  itself  corrupt  in  the  highest  degree  — 
though  "the  Baptist  church  can  never  become 
corrupted."  The  very  conception  of  the  Doctor's 
book  originated  in  corruption,  or  in  ignorance, 
and  we  need  go  no  farther  to  prove,  that  the  Bap- 
tist church,  in  its  ministry  at  least,  is  not  pro- 
tected against  corruption  by  its  opposition  to  in- 
fant baptism. 

But  we  shall  go  farther.  Admitting  the  claim 
of  the  Baptists  —  which  we  do  not  —  that  infant 
baptism  did  not  exist  in  the  Apostolic  churches, 
nor  in  the  early  churches,  as  the  Doctor  affirms, 
"till  the  middle  of  the  third  century,"  up  to 
which  time  the  Baptist  church  alone  existed,  how 
did  it  happen,  that  the  church  became  corrupt  at 
all  ?  In  his  work  on  "  Terms  of  Communion,"  p. 
181,  the  Doctor  affirms,  "In  the  third  century 
and  onwards,  the  Christian  fathers  believed  and 
taught  that  sins  were  only  forgiven  in  baptism, 


108  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


that  infacts,  by  this  ordinance,  were  purged  from 
original  pollution,  and  that  all  persons  dying  with- 
out it  were  lost/'  How  came  these  Fathers  so  to 
believe  and  teach,  while  they  were  Baptists,  and 
^' the  Baptist  church  can  never  be  corrupted?" 
Besides,  if  for  the  first  three  hundred  years  the 
church  was  Baptist,  it  would  be  easy  for  the  Doc- 
tor to  run  a  line  of  immersionists  back  to  the 
days  of  the  Apostles,  for  it  is  presumable,  as  the 
Doctor  has  fixed  the  time  of  the  origin  of  infant 
baptism,  he  can  also  certainly  tell  us  up  to  what 
time,  and  to  what  minister  or  preacher  the  Baptist 
church  continued  in  its  Apostolic  purity,  ^^  faith 
and  order."  If  this  can  be  done,  it  is  surprising 
it  has  never  been  done,  since  this  would  have  set- 
tled the  baptismal  controversy,  and  established  the 
claims  of  the  Baptist  church  forever.  If  the  Bap- 
tist church  did  exist  in  the  Apostolic  age,  and 
continued  uncorrupted  for  two  hundred  years  after 
the  death  of  St.  John  (the  last  of  the  Apostles), 
which  happened  about  100  A.  D.,  the  first  fact  is 
evident,  that  the  Baptist  church,  though  it  was. 
Apostolic,  did  become  corrupt,  which  refutes  the 
above  arrogant  assertion  of  the  Doctor;  and  the 
second  fact  is  equally  evident,  the  succession  of 
the  Baptist  church  has  been  lost  in  the  promis- 
cuous ruins  of  ages,  which  refutes  the  popular  and 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  109 


favorite  dogma  of  some  of  the  Baptists,  that  ^'  im- 
mersion at  the  hands  of  an  immersed  administra- 
tor is  indispensable  to  the  validity  of  the  ordi- 
nance :"  in  the  former  case,  the  Baptist  church 
was  "corrupted  and  destroyed;"  in  the  latter 
case,  it  does  not  exist :  in  either  case,  the  arro- 
gance of  the  Baptist  church,  on  the  subjects  of 
immersion  and  infant  baptism,  is  severely  rebuked. 
Thus  :  if  the  modern  Baptist  church  is  a  revival 
and  restoration  of  Apostolic  purity,  as  is  assumed 
by  the  Baptists,  "  corruption"  may  again  ensue 
in  the  Baptist  church,  and  the  "  destruction"  of 
the  Baptist  church  again  occur — though  it  never 
maintain  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism. 

For  example :  upon  the  supposition  —  which  we 
do  not  admit  —  that  the  Apostolic  churches  were 
Baptist  churches,  whence  originated  the  Ebion- 
ites  ?  —  the  Gnostics  ?  —  the  Phantastics  or  Doce- 
tae  ?  — the  Marcionites  ?  —  the  Encratites  ?  —  the 
Carpocratians  ?  —  the  Patripassians  ?  —  the  Yalen- 
tinans  ?  —  the  Montanists  ?  —  the  Manicheans  ? 
For  example  again  :  modern  Unitarianism  was  re- 
vived in  a  Baptist  church  in  Scotland,  and  Uni 
versalism  originated  in  this  country,  and  perhaps 
in  the  world,  in  a  "  Baptist  church"  in  Philadel- 
phia, under  the  heretical  teaching  of  the  celebrated 
Elnathan  Winchester,  a  Baptist  clergyman,  who 
10 


110  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


afterwards  visited  England  to  disseminate  tlie  new 
heresy  there.  And  Walter  Balfour,  the  great 
leader  of  Universalism  in  New  England,  was  a 
Baptist,  and  then  became  a  Universalist,  and  was 
one  of  the  most  dangerous  sophists  and  heretics 
of  our  times.  And  Alexander  Campbell,  the 
founder  of  Campbellism,  was  a  Baptist,  and  is  the 
most  dangerous  religious  sophist  of  the  present 
age.  Once  more :  the  Baptist  church  may  be 
distinguished  into  two  denominations,  the  Par- 
ticular and  General  Baptists,  and  these  have  but 
little  communication  with  one  another.  The  Par- 
ticular Baptists  are  Calvinistic,  whose  leading  arti- 
cle is  the  doctrine  of  particular  redemption.  The 
General  Baptists  maintain  the  doctrine  of  general 
redemption,  and  other  doctrines  of  the  Arminian 
system,  while  they  agree  with  the  Particular  Bap- 
tists only  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  worship  and 
church  discipline.  The  General  Baptists  have 
recently  been  distinguished  into  the  Old  and  New 
connections.  The  Old  General  Baptists  have  been 
gradually  declining,  and  under  the  corrupting  in- 
fiuecice  of  Socinianism  they  are  likely  to  become 
extinct.  And  then  there  are  the  Scottish  Bap- 
tists, of  more  recent  date  still,  who.  differ  in  various 
respects  from  the  English  Baptists.  And  then 
more  recently  still,  there  has  sprung  up  in  Scot- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  Ill 


land  another  sect,  called  the  Tabernacle  connec- 
tion, gathered  together  by  Messrs.  James  and 
Haldane,  who  set  out  upon  the  principle  of  JPsedo- 
Baptism,  and  formed  churches  independent  of  the 
parent  stock,  which  "  evil'^  has  been  greatly  aggra- 
vated by  another  "evil,^^  namely,  that  "iAe 
Lord's  Supper  is  not  peculiarly  a  church  ordi- 
nance." And  then  in  the  United  States  there 
are  the  ^'Regular  or  Associated"  Baptists,  "mode- 
rately Calvinistic  in  sentiment."  And  then  there 
are  many  smaller  bodies  of  Baptists,  such  as  the 
"Seventh-day'*  Baptists,  mostly  Calvinistic — the 
"  Free-Will"  Baptists,  inclined  to  Arminianism  — 
the  "  Christians,"  who,  with  few  exceptions,  deny 
the  Trinity  —  the  "Tunkers  or  Dunkards,"  found 
in  several  parts  of  our  country,  and  avowed  Uni- 
versalists  in  sentiment  — "  Campbellism,"  that 
most  miserable  heresy,  or  rather  jumhle  of  most 
rniserahle  heresies,  so  prevalent  specially  in  the 
West,  and  which  has  derived  most  of  its  adherents 
from  Baptist  churches  —  the  "Anti-Missionary" 
Baptists,  prominent  only  for  their  "ignorance  and 
immorality"— the  "Hard-ShelF'  or  " Black-rocJc^' 
Baptists,  whose  title  is  sufficiently  significant  with- 
out comment — the  "  Two-Seed"  Baptists,  a  stinted 
and  waning  reproduction  of  ancient  Manicheism — 
the  "  Close-Communion  Calvinistic"  Baptists,  an 


112  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


amalgamation  of  Baptist  worship  and  Calvinistic 
doctrine  —  the  "  Free  Chri.stian"  Baptists,  whose 
doctrines  are  in  general  the  same  as  the  Free-Will 
Baptists  —  the  "  Six-Principle"  Baptists  —  and 
the  '^Emancipators" — and  so  on,  and  so  on  — 
and  how  did  ''  corruption"  originate  in  any  of 
these?  or  what  has  broken  and  scattered  these 
fragments  of  the  Baptist  church  in  Christendom  ? 
But  one  example  more.  In  England,  at  thievery 
hour,  Paedo-Baptum  is  extending  in  the  Baptist 
church.  The  Baptists  in  this  country  may  stu- 
diously conceal  it  from  "  the  million,"  but  such  is 
the  fact.  And  lo !  here  we  have,  upon  the  Doc- 
tor's own  showing,  infant  laptism,  the  sum  of 
ecclesiastical  "evils,"  corrupting  the  Baptist 
church  itself!  How  soon,  and  how  far,  the  exam- 
ple of  the  English  Baptists  may  extend  its  influ- 
ence to  this  country,  it  is  impossible  to  say ;  but 
we  see  no  difi'erence  between  the  two  countries, 
and  none  between  the  Baptist  church  here  and 
there,  that  can  much  longer  prevent  the  same  re- 
sult in  America  ]  and  added  to  the  growing  influ- 
ence of  the  evangelical  Paedo-Baptist  churches 
upon  "the  million,"  we  hesitate  not  to  express  it 
as  our  deliberate  conviction,  that  the  forthcoming 
"new  translation"  of  the  Bible  will  greatly  pro- 
mote this  result. 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  113 


But  we  go  still  farther.  We  adduce  the  Doc- 
tor's concessions.  The  sagacious  Doctor,  con- 
fronted on  every  hand  by  the  evangelical  charac- 
ter of  certain  Psedo-Baptist  churches,  with  appa- 
rent candor  inquires,  "But  is  not  this  an  over- 
statement of  the  case  ?  In  our  country,  at  least, 
do  the  corruptions  alleged  exist,  if  at  all,  to 
the  extent  indicated?  Is  infant  baptism  there- 
fore productive  of  the  evils  here  charged  against 
it  ?  /  am  happy  to  concede  that  in  this  favored 
land,  and  with  some  classes  of  our  Paedo-Baptist 
brethren,  its  evils  are  greatly  mitigated"  (pp.  113, 
114).  Fatal  concession  —  then  why  so  much 
pompous  swelling,  ridiculous  dogmatism,  and 
pious  cant,  about  imaginary  evils,  existing,  we  are 
tempted  to  believe,  only  in  the  excessive  vanity 
of  a  mind  whose  judgment  is  contracted  by  preju- 
dice and  perverted  by  sophistry  ?  That  we  do  not 
''overstate  the  case,'^  we  invite  the  reader^s  atten- 
tion to  the  singular  manner  in  which,  in  the  next 
paragraph,  he  attempts  to  destroy  the  whole  force 
of  this  concession.  "  I  shall  now  prove,  however, 
.that  this  is  the  result  of  peculiar  causes" — and 
he  mentions  four  —  modestly  placing  his  own 
church  in  front,  and  conferring  the  greatest  honor 
upon  his  own  denomination.  "  These  sects,"  says 
he,  "are  still  evangelical  in  consequence  of  four 

10 'if 


114  INFANT     BAPTISM 


causes  whicli  are  perpetually  acting  upon  them." 
We  shall  give  these  "  causes"  a  brief  examination, 
in  the  order  in  which  the  Doctor  arranges  them. 
''  In  the  first  place,  the  Baptist  churches  of  this 
country  contain  a  million  of  communicants.  Five 
millions  more  are  of  their  opinion,  and  under 
their  influence.  One-fourth,  therefore,  of  all  the 
population  of  the  United  States  are  strongly  Bap- 
tistical.  With  them  Paedo-Baptists  are  ever  asso- 
ciated. They  thus  in  a  great  measure  destroy  the 
influence  of  infant  baptism"  (p.  114).  The  evan- 
gelical purity  of  the  Paedo-Baptist  churches 
ascribed  mainly  to  the  influence  of  the  Baptist 
church!  —  to  the  influence  of  TunkerSj  Univer- 
salistSj  UnitarianSj  GamphelUtes,  Anti- Mission  ary^ 
Hard- Shell  J  Black-Rock,  Two- Seed,  Six- Princi- 
ple, Close- Communion  Calvinistic,  Open- Commu- 
nion, No- Communion,  Antinomian,  Free- Will, 
Arian,  and  Trinitarian  Baptists,  who  make  up  a 
large  proportion  of  the  round  "  million"  aforesaid  1 
Doctor,  it  is  demonstrable  that  these  sects  corrupt 
TOUR  OWN  CHURCH,  and  diffuse  the  corrupting 
leaven  to  such  an  extent  throughout  the  whole 
"  Baptistical"  mass,  that  the  influence  of  the 
evangelical  Psedo-Baptist  churches  is  required,  to 
a  great  extent,  to  preserve  what  is  pure  in  your 
own  church.     It  is  demonstrable,  that  the  Baptist 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  115 


church  has  acquired,  as  a  basement,  what  of  evan- 
gelical purity  and  activity  it  at  present  possesses, 
from  its  daily  contact  with  the  pure  evangelical 
Psedo- Baptist  churches.  This  is  the  true  state- 
ment of  the  case,  and  the  Doctor  should  have 
made  the  candid  acknowledgment,  and  rendered 
^'  honor  to  whom  honor  is  due."  ^'  Secondly,  the 
universal  diffusion  of  the  Bible  is  a  potent  and 
ever-acting  energy."  That  is  the  very  reason  why 
the  evangelical  Psedo-Baptist  churches  are  flourish- 
ing in  an  unprecedented  manner  in  our  "highly -fa- 
vored country,"  in  the  present  age.  And  this  the 
Doctor  himself  admits.  "All  are  now  in  the 
church*'  (p.  126),  though  he  asserts  (p.  115),  in- 
fant baptism  is  a  subject  of  wide-spread  neglect 
everywhere"  —  two  statements  positively  contra- 
dictory —  and  no  wonder,  because  made  to  prove 
two  positively  false  and  contradictory  premises. 
Indeed,  this  is  the  specific  character  of  the  Doc- 
tor's book  -^  a  combination  of  false  premises  and 
positive  contradictions.  "Thirdly,  many  Paedo- 
Baptist  ministers  are  themselves  converted  men. 
They  preach  the  great  fundamental  doctrines  of 
the  gospel,  and  thus  falsify  infant  baptism,  and 
keep  it  entirely  out  of  sight."  It  is  admitted  then 
that  "many  Psedo. Baptist  ministers"  are  evan- 
gelical   in   experience   and   in   doctrine  —  so   far 


116  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


good :  but  this  is  admitting  that  one  of  the 
^'causes''  of  the  evangelical  purity  of  the  Psedo- 
Baptist  churches  is  in  theinselves,  and  the  cause 
continuing,  the  effect  must  continue;  and  so  ortho- 
doxy, in  the  Paedo-Baptist  churches,  is  likely  to 
perpetuate  them.  But  it  is  a  mistake,  that  Paedo- 
Baptist  ministers  "falsify  infant  baptism,  and 
keep  it  entirely  out  of  sight''  —  as  is  proved,  not 
only  by  the  many  able  treatises  written  on  the 
subject  of  infant  baptism,  and  opened  in  sight  of 
Christendom,  and  the  sermons  of  Paedo-Baptists 
preached  in  all  parts  of  the  land,  and  the  Cate- 
chisms used  in  all  the  Paedo-Baptist  churches,  but 
also,  as  is  usual,  by  the  Doctor  TiimseJf,  in  the 
vast  multitude  of  quotations  which  he  makes  from 
Paedo-Baptist  authorities,  of  which  his  "little 
volume"  is  principally  composed,  and  to  which  it 
is  indebted  mainly  for  its  size.  "We  never  read  an 
author  more  dogmatic,  or  so  perfectly  self-contra- 
dictory and  so  self-refuting  as  Dr.  Howell.  And 
yet  this  is  not  surprising.  For  a  mind,  either 
voluntarily  disregarding  the  truth,  or  naturally 
unable  to  construct  a  logical  argument,  must,  in 
its  progress,  clash  somewhere  with  truth  and  rea- 
son. "  The  fourth,  and  last  clause,  is  found  in 
the  revivals  which  have  so  long,  and  so  happily 
prevailed  in  our  country.''     Granted :  and  this  is 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  117 


another  cause  of  evangelical  purity  existing  in  the 
Paedo-Baptist  churches  themselves,  and  Grod  grant 
that  it  may  exist,  and  acquire  accumulated  vigor, 
with  the  progress  of  time.  But  the  Doctor  him- 
self knows,  that  the  Baptist  church  has  shared, 
and  still  shares  largely,  in  the  fruits  of  these  evan- 
gelical Paedo-Baptist  revivals,  and  he  should  have 
frankly  made  this  concession  also.  But  the  con- 
clusion of  the  Doctor  is  one  of  the  most  ludicrous 
instances  of  ''begging  the  question"  in  his  book. 
"  But  take  away  these  influences  and  infant  bap- 
tism will  lead  here  to  the  same  results  that  it  has 
attained  in  G-ermany,  Spain  and  Ital/^ — that  is — 
the  evangelical  Paedo-Baptist  churches  be  "over- 
whelmed with  hopeless  corruption."  Take  away 
"these  influences,"  that  is,  excepting  the  "first," 
and  any  church  on  earth  would  be  overwhelmed 
with  corruption,  even  though  it  were  admitted  on 
all  hands  that  infant  baptism  is  not  an  evil. 
"Take  away  these  influences,"  and  the  Baptist 
church  could  not  long  exist,  though  it  is  not 
"  corrupted"  by  the  great  "  evil"  of  infant  bap- 
tism. What  are  "  these  influences  ?"  Why,  the 
Bible,  a  lioly  ministry,  and  evangelical  revivals. 
Remove  these  from  any  church,  and  at  once  it 
becomes  "overwhelmed  with  corruption."  In 
these  respects,  the  Baptist  church  occupies  the 


118  INFANT    BAPTIS 


same  ground  with  the  Pasdo-Baptist  churclies,  and 
tlie  Doctor's  argument  is  as  good  against  the  con- 
tinued purity  of  his  own  churqh,  as  against  that  of 
the  evangelical  Paedo-Baptist  churches.  To  say, 
that  "these  influences"  being  withdrawn,  then  in- 
fant baptism  will  "  overwhelm  the  church  with  cor- 
ruption/' is  also  reasoning  in  a  circle,"  since  these 
influences  having  been  withdrawn,  the  church  is 
already  "  overwhelmed  with  corruption."  And  to 
say,  that  then  infant  baptism  will  efi"ect  all  this 
corruption,  is  to  leave  infant  baptism  nothing  to 
accomplish  as  a  corrupting  cause,  but  itself  to  be 
perverted  and  abused,  as  in  the  history  of  Popery 
and  Puseyism. 

The  Doctor  concludes  his  argument  with  the 
assumption,  that  "it  is  most  evident  that  no 
church  practising  infant  baptism  can  long  remain 
a  true  church  of  Christ,"  and  that,  "  without  it, 
the  Roman  church,  the  Greek  church,  the  Lu- 
theran church,  the  English  church,  never  would, 
never  could  have  fallen  into  their  present  heresies 
and  corruptions,"  and  that  "every  other  Paedo- 
Baptist  church  is  following  in  the  same  path." 
Worse  and  worse.  Does  not  the  Doctor  know  — 
and  we  must  here  repeat  —  that  a  thousand  cor- 
ruptions in  churches,  formerly  evangelical,  origi- 
nated in  causes  entirely  diffierent  from,  and  inde- 


INTANT    BAPTISM.  119 


pendent  of,  infant  baptism  ?  That  then  infant 
baptism  was  perverted  and  abused  in  common 
with  almost  every  other  evangelical  institution  ? 
That  ambition,  bigotry,  and  cupidity  were  foun- 
tains of  numberless  evils  ?  That  false  philosophy 
was  the  parent  of  endless  heresies  and  supersti- 
tions? That  intrigue  and  worldly  policy  insidi- 
ously engrafted  upon  the  church  countless  innova- 
tions ?  And  that  in  the  incipiency  and  progress 
of  these  invasions  of  the  simplicity  and  purity  of 
the  church,  she  neglected  to  conform  to  the  Bible, 
failed  to  apply  rigidly  the  proper  tests  of  church- 
membership,  and  finally  wholly  neglected  the 
proper  exercise  of  church  discipline?  Had  she 
done  all  these  faithfully,  corruption  would  have 
been  impossible.  And  this  the  Doctor,  as  usual, 
admits :  —  "  How  can  it  [the  purity  of  the  church] 
be  secured  and  perpetuated  ?  It  can  be  done  only 
by  a  strict  conformity  to  the  Divine  Word  gene- 
rally, and  especially  to  the  laws  of  membership 
there  revealed  and  established.  Let  also  a  careful 
discipline  be  maintained,  and  every  member  be 
promptly  separated  from  the  body  who  is  found  to 
be  unworthy  and  cannot  be  reclaimed  Such  a 
church  corruption  can  never  approach"  (p.  116). 
Now  it  does  seem  evident,  notwithstanding  the 
Doctor's  repeated  and  egregious  blunders  in  logic, 


120  INFANT     BAPTISM 


philosophy,  and  history,  that  he  has  often  sagacity 
enough  to  discover  the  true  causes  of  the  church's 
corruption,  and  the  adequate  remedies  —  though 
this  does  not  require  the  exercise  of  a  wonderful 
or  extraordinary  faculty,  since  they  lie  on  the  sur- 
face of  things.  And  yet  he  does  evince  sadly  a 
want  of  candor,  in  not  giving  these  causes  and 
remedies  the  proper  location,  attributes  and  rela- 
tions. And  hence  we  are  inclined  to  the  opinion, 
that  the  Doctor  discovering,  as  he  progressed  in 
his  argument,  the  true  causes  of  corruption,  he 
could  not  state  them  fairly  without  utterly  destroy- 
ing his  argument,  and  he  could  not  omit  them 
altogether,  without  exposing  himself  to  the  charge 
of  unfairness;  for  it  is  inconceivable,  how  he 
could  so  clearly  suggest  the  remedies,  without  as 
clearly  perceiving  the  causes  of  the  corruptions  to 
be  removed.  Indeed,  it  may  be  affirmed  as  an 
axiom  generally  applicable  to  the  Doctor's  book, 
that  his  own  admissions  are  either  directly  or  in- 
directly sufficient  refutations  of  his  assumptions. 
His  assumptions  are  so  extravagant,  that  the}', 
require  some  modifying  concessions  to  render 
them  palatable  to  ^'the  million;"  but  unfortu- 
nately the  concessions,  founded  in  truth,  are  so 
plainly  in  conflict  with  the  assumptions,  that  so  far 
from  supporting  them,  they  destroy  their  force 
altogether. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  121 


VIII.  His  next  general  argument  is  :  "  Infant 
baptism   is   an   evil,   because    it    gives    false 

VIEWS   OF    THE    KINGDOM    OF    ChRIST"  (p.  117). 

The  reply  to  this  assumption  is  brief.  After  a 
useless  effort  to  prove  what  every  evangelical 
Paedo-Baptist  admits,  namely,  that  the  kingdom 
of  Christ  "  is  purely  spiritual,^'  the  Doctor  con- 
cludes, "that  only  those  who  are  spiritual  are 
capable  of  citizenship  in  the  kingdom. '^  G-ranted, 
and  Christ  says  of  "  little  children"  —  "  of  such  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven."  What  the  Doctor  says 
of  adults,  baptized  in  infancy,  as  being  still  "mewi- 
hers  of  the  several  Psedo-Baptist  churches,"  though 
they  "crowd  the  haunts  of  gaiety,  dissipation, 
folly,  and  even  of  crime,"  has  no  application  to 
the  evangelical  Psedo-Baptist  churches,  for  by 
these  churches  all  such  baptized  persons  are  not 
regarded  as  members  of  the  Christian  church, 
they  having  forfeited  their  right  to  church-mem- 
bership by  actual  and  repeated  transgressions, 
which  they  can  recover  only  by  evangelical  re- 
pentance and  faith.  And  hence  it  is  not  true,  as 
the  Doctor  states,  that  "  three-fourths  of  all  the 
children  in  the  United  States  are  members  of  the 
churches."  We  have  nothing  to  do  with  "  Eu- 
ropean countries  where  the  whole  population  is, 
by  law,  baptized  —  though  this  is  an  abuse,  not 
11 


122  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


an  "evil,"  of  infant  baptism.  Thus,  the  general 
proposition  is  not  sustained  by  the  facts  and  prin- 
ciples in  the  case,  and  so  falls  to  the  ground. 

IX.  The  next  argument  in  the  Doctor's  book 
is :  "  Infant  baptism  is  an  evil,  because  it 

DESTROYS     THE    VISIBILITY    OF     THE    CHURCH" 

(p.  123).  The  reply  to  this  assumption  is  also 
brief,  because  it  is  made  without  qualification  and 
without  discrimination.  All  children  are  entitled 
unconditionally  to  association  with  the  visible 
church,  because  they  are  already  unconditionally 
associated  with  the  spiritual  church,  and  in  re- 
sponsible age,  they  may  continue  their  connection 
with  the  spiritual  and  visible  church  by  faith  and 
obedience,  and  so  they  may  dissolve  their  connec- 
tion with  the  spiritual  and  visible  church,  by  the 
neglect  of  these  evangelical  obligations.  The  Doc- 
tor is  right  when  he  says,  "  The  doctrine  taught 
by  our  Paedo-Baptist  brethren  would  hring  every 
child  upon  earth,  as  soon  as  it  is  born,  into  the 
church"  (p.  126).  And  they  teach  likewise,  that 
every  baptized  child  may  voluntarily  go  out  of  the 
visible  church  as  soon  as  it  arrives  at  responsible 
age.  Baptism  recognizes  in  the  child  an  obligation 
to  discharge,  at  the  proper  time,  all  the  conditions 
of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  seals  unto  him,  dis- 
charging those  conditions,  all  the   rights,  privi- 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  123 


leges,  and  blessings  of  the  covenant,  and  one  of 
these  is  continued  association  with  the  visible 
church.  The  acknowledgment  of  the  right  of  an 
infant,  in  responsible  age  discharging  these  con- 
ditions, to  continued  association  with  the  visible 
church,  no  more  destroys  the  vidhility  of  the 
church,  than  the  acknowledgment  of  the  right  of 
an  adult,  discharging  the  same  conditions,  to  asso- 
ciation with  the  visible  church,  destroys  the  visi- 
bility of  the  church.  In  both  cases,  regeneration 
accompanies  the  discharge  of  the  conditions,  and 
therefore  the  right  to  association  with  the  visible 
church  in  both  cases  is  the  same.  Adults,  bap- 
tized in  infancy,  who  subsequently  fail  to  discharge 
the  conditions  prospectively  implied  in  their  bap- 
tism, are  no  more  regarded  as  members  of  the 
visible  church,  than  are  impenitent  adults  who 
were  not  baptized  in  infancy.  How  then  is  the 
visibility  of  the  church  destroyed  by  infant  bap- 
tism? Had  the  Doctor  understood  the  doctrine 
of  infant  baptism  better,  or  treated  the  views  of 
Psedo-Baptists  with  more  candor,  he  never  would 
have  ventured  to  make  the  assumption  under  con- 
sideration. Hence,  the  following  assertion  of  the 
Doctor,  "  The  church  is  the  world,  and  the  world 
is  the  church,'^  is  the  conclusion  of  his  own  fancy, 
and  the  fruit  of  his  own  ignorance.     What  he 


124  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


Bays  of  the  custom  in  ^^  Germany/*  has  no  more  to 
do  with  the  sound  theology  of  infant  baptism  in 
this  country,  than  the  neology  of  Germany  has, 
and  has  none  of  the  ingenuity  and  plausibility  of 
the  neology  of  Germany,  though  he  says,  ^'  such 
is  the  testimony  of  one  of  their  [Psedo-Baptists'] 
own  witnesses  to  the  destructive  influence  of  in- 
fant baptism,"  which  we  deny,  and  boldly  retort, 
it  is  no  more  the  testimony  of  one  of  our  wit- 
nesses, than  Alexander  Campbell,  on  the  efficacy 
of  immersion,  is  one  of  the  Doctor's  witnesses. 

The  Doctor  next  assumes  the  defensive.  "  Bap- 
tism and  membership  in  the  church  must  be 
strictly  confined  to  those  who  give  credible  evi- 
dence of  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Baptists 
alone  now  maintain  these  principles."  No  doubt, 
these  are  the  principles  of  the  Baptists  alone.  And 
yet  the  Baptists  do  not  go  far  enough.  Baptism 
should  be  given  to  all  who  have  a  right  to  '^  mem- 
bership in  the  church :"  thus,  children  have  a 
right  to  it  without  "  faith,"  and  adults  hy  "  faith." 
"We  therefore,"  the  Doctor  continues,  "wield 
the  only  conservative  influence  at  present  existing 
in  the  universe."  So  thought  the  Millerites  most 
confidently  at  one  time,  and  some  of  them  are  de- 
luded and  vain  enough  to  think  so  still.  The 
arrogance  of  the  assumption  is  its  own  refutation. 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  125 


'^  How  exalted,  therefore,  how  sublime  our  mis- 
sion !  Every  hierarchy  and  sect,  Papal  and  Pro- 
testant, has  been  united  for  our  destruction,  and 
erery  government  upon  earth  has  pursued  us  in- 
cessantly, with  fire  and  sword,  but  we  have  lived 
on  through  every  persecution,  and  have  never 
failed,  however  deep  our  suffering,  to  bear  our 
testimony  as  witnesses  for  God."  Every  other 
sect  of  evangelical  Christianity  can  say  the  same 
thing.  And  so  can  the  Quakers  and  the  Jews. 
"  Our  bonds  are  at  last  being  loosed ;  the  links  of 
our  chain  are,  one  by  one,  breaking  and  falling; 
prosperity  has  come;  and  our  rapid  spread  over 
the  earth  intimates  that  God  is  about  to  vindicate 
his  gospel,  to  sweep  away  from  among  men  the 
clouds  of  ignorance  and  error,  and  to  restore  to 
the  world  a  pure  and  glorious  Christianity." 
Amen  —  but  not  quite  all  the  credit  to  the  Bap- 
tist church,  my  enraptured  Doctor.  The  evangeli- 
cal Paedo-Baptist  churches  also  have  a  right  to 
participate  in  the  general  joy,  and  indulge  also 
the  same  glorious  hope.  The  prosperity  of  the 
Baptist  church  is  not  to  be  ascribed  to  her  oppo- 
sition to  infant  baptism,  but  to  her  gradual  and 
manifest  improvement  in  doctrine,  in  intelligence, 
in  piety,  in  zeal,  in  means  to  enlarge  her  enter- 
prises, notwithstanding  her  restrictions  and  exclu- 
11* 


126  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


siveness.  How  much  good  she  accomplishes  by 
her  necessary  and  general  co-operation  with  evan- 
gelical Psedo-Baptist  churches,  it  is  impossible 
precisely  to  estimate,  though  the  Doctor  makes  no 
account  of  this.  And  how  much  good  she  pre- 
vents, by  her  opposition  to  infant  baptism,  her 
restrictions,  her  exclusiveness,  her  limited  views 
of  the  atonement,  her  want  of  entire  fellowship 
and  co-operation  with  other  branches  of  pure 
Christianity,  it  is  also  impossible  to  estimate. 
However,  we  are  not  willing  to  concede,  that  the 
Baptist  church  alone  could  ^^  sweep  away  from 
among  men  the  clouds  of  ignorance  and  error, 
and  restore  to  the  world  a  pure  and  gloriovs  Chris- 
tianity," though  the  Doctor  is  enchanted  by  the 
vision,  and  believes  that  his  church  has  already 
entered  upon  this  "  sublime  mission."  The  ''  mis- 
sion" of  his  book  is,  to  destroy  all  the  Paedo-Bap- 
tist  churches  in  the  world,  and  over  their  mourn- 
ful ruins,  publish  among  all  nations  Baptistical 
views  of  a  pure  and  glorious  Christianity.  How 
much  the  progress  of  the  gospel  would  be  retarded 
by  this  catastrophe,  no  language  can  describe. 

X.  The  tenth  general  argument  of  the  Doctor 
is  :  "  Infant  baptism  is  an  evil,  because  its  prac- 
tice PERPETUATES  THE  SUPERSTITIONS  BY  WHICH 
IT   WAS   ORIGINALLY    PRODUCED"    (p.    131).      If 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  127 


superstition  originally  produced  infant  baptism, 
or  as  the  Doctor  says  (p.  130),  "  superstition  is 
the  parent  of  infant  baptism/'  then  infant  baptism 
did  not  produce  all  the  evil  in  Christendom.  The 
church  then  was  corrupted  by  "superstitions" 
before  infant  baptism  was  produced.  But  before 
infant  baptism  was  known,  if  ever  there  was  such 
a  time  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  the  church 
was  wholly  Baptist  —  how  then  did  the  Baptist 
church  become  superstitious?  The  Doctor  him- 
self affirms,  that  during  the  Apostolic  age,  and 
until  two  hundred  years  of  the  church  had  been 
told,  infant  baptism  was  wholly  unknown.  The 
history  of  that  period,  whether  sacred  or  profane, 
makes  not  the  remotest  allusion  to  such  a  prac- 
tice" (p.  130).  Granted,  and  then  infant  baptism 
was  the  result  of  antecedent  *^  evils,"  and  these 
evils  must  have  originated  in  the  Baptist  church 
at  this  time;  and  if  all  the  subsequent  ^' evils" 
ascribed  by  the  Doctor  to  infant  baptism,  did 
originate  in  infant  baptism,  how  great  must  have 
been  the  "evils"  in  the  Baptist  church  that 
originated  infant  baptism  !  And  so  it  turns  out 
at  last,  that  infant  baptism  originated  in  the  Bap- 
tist church,  and  originally  destroyed  the  Baptist 
church  !  and  infant  baptism,  or  something  worse, 
may  do  it  again !     But  we  deny  altogether  the 


128  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


assumption  of  the  Doctor,  and  ajBfirm  that  "the 
history  of  that  period  makes  allusions/'  both  posi- 
tive and  inferential,  to  infant  baptism,  as  we  have 
shown  (in  another  work),  from  the  Scriptures,  and 
also  from  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  that  period. 
Says  the  Doctor,  "  Origen,  who  lived  in  the  mid- 
dle of  the  third  century,  was  the  first  who  defended 
it"  (p.  132).  Yery  well;  and  why?  Because 
Tertullian,  his  contemporary ,  was  the  first  who 
opposed  it  —  in  a  certain  manner  —  and  no  sooner 
do  we  hear  of  opposition  from  Tertullian,  than  we 
witness  a  prompt  defence  from  Origen,  who  was 
baptized  in  infancy,  and  was  descended  from 
Christian  parents  —  his  father,  grandfather,  grand- 
mother, and  great-grandfather,  being  Christians. 
Besides,  it  is  true,  that  Origen  '-Hived  in  the 
middle  of  the  third  century ;"  but  it  is  also  trne, 
that  he  was  horn  in  the  year  185,  when  he  was 
baptized.  Why  did  not  the  Doctor  tell  "the 
million''  that?  And  he  proceeds  to  give  what  he 
calls  the  true  causes  of  the  origin  of  infant  baptism 
at  this  early  age,  all  of  which  are  in  fact  the  true 
causes  of  the  abuse  or  perversion  of  infant  baptism. 
Against  these  corruptions  he  says,  "murmur- 
ings  were  doubtless  uttered  occasionally  by  those 
who  knew  anything  of  religion  as  taught  in  the 
Word  of  God.     But  —  they  were  all  silenced  — 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  129 


by  decrees"  —  of  the  corrupt  churcli  (p.  137). 
Granted  —  but  the  evangelical  Psedo-Baptists 
uttered  the  ^'  murmurings"  —  denying  "  that  the 
sacraments  are  necessary  to  salvation,"  or  "  that 
they  contain  the  grace  they  signify."  In  the  one 
ease,  the  ahuse  of  infant  baptism  originated  in  the 
"  superstitions"  and  "  corruptions"  of  the  church 
—  in  the  other  case,  the  restoration  of  infant  bap- 
tism to  its  Apostolic  purity  originated  in  the 
opposition  of  its  evangelical  defenders  in  the 
Psedo-Baptist  churches.  And  so  when  the  Doctor 
says,  "that  all  the  sects  of  Protestant  Psedo- 
Baptists  are  under  the  influence  at  this  moment, 
to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  of  [certain]  forms  of 
superstition,  is  a  fact  that  no  man  can  successfully 
deny"  (p.  142),  we  boldly  reply,  that  this  is  an 
allegation  which  no  man  can  successfully  prove. 
That  superstition  exists  in  certain  churches,  such 
as  the  Romish,  and  Puseyite,  we  admit;  but  it  no 
more  therefore  follows,  that  any  of  the  evangelical 
Paedo-Baptist  churches  are  under  its  "  influence," 
than  because  Campbellites  are  immersionists,  there- 
fore all  immersionists  are  under  the  "  influence" 
of  the  Campbellite  "superstition"  of  baptismal 
regeneration. 

XI.   The   eleventh    general   argument  of  the 
Doctor  is :  "  Infant  baptism  is  an  evil,  becanse  it 


130  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


BRINGS  ITS  ADVOCATES  INTO  COLLISION  WITH 
THE  AUTHORITY  OF  ChRIST''  (p.  154).    And  thuS 

he  proceeds.  "1.  Infant  baptism  renounces  the 
authority  of  Christ  in  regard  to  the  persons  to  be 
baptized"  (pp.  154,  155).  When  the  Doctor  can 
prove,  that  Christ  has  no  authority  over  infants,  it 
will  be  time  enough  to  consider  this  strange  notion. 
"What  he  says  about  the  baptism  of  infants  in 
"  Spain  and  Italy,''  we  admit,  is  true ;  but  this  has 
nothing  to  do  with  us  —  no  more,  in  fact,  than 
Alexander  Campbell's  views  of  immersion  have 
to  do  with  the  Doctor's.  The  Doctor's  assertion, 
^'It  [infant  baptism]  baptizes  exclusively  unbe- 
lievers, and  helievers  never,"  is  a  sophism,  awk- 
wardly expressed.  Unbelievers  are  voluntary  agents : 
infants  are  not  voluntary  agents,  and  therefore  can- 
not be  unbelievers.  Besides,  if  infants  are  unbe- 
lievers, then  all  dying  in  infancy  are  lost !  "  2. 
Infant  baptism  offers  an  indignity  to  the  authority 
of  Christ  by  dispensing  with  the  appointed  pro- 
fession of  faith  as  a  condition  of  baptism"  (p.  157). 
Here  is  another  sophism,  as  fatal  to  infants  as  the 
preceding.  The  authority  of  Christ  over  infants 
is  formally  and  solemnly  acknowledged  in  baptism. 
And  to  require  of  infants  "  profession  of  faith  as  a 
condition  of  baptismj'^  is  to  require  of  them  faith 
as  a  condition  of  salvation,  which   they  cannot 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  131 


exercise,  and  so,  from  the  Doctor's  premises,  all 
dying  in  infancy,  must  be  lost.  "3.  It  also 
changes  the  form,  and  thus  wholly  abolishes  bap- 
tism itself  ^^  (p.  158).  Here  is  a  begging  of  the 
question^  for  the  assumption,  that  immersion  is 
the  only  proper  mode  of  baptism,  is  begging  the 
question  respecting  mere  mode.  "4.  Infant  bap- 
tism prevents  the  obedience  to  Christ  of  believers" 
(p.  159).  This  is  a  misconception  of  the  true 
import  of  infant  baptism.  Infant  baptism  respects 
obedience  at  the  proper  age,  as  adult  baptism  im- 
poses obedience  upon  believers  now ;  and  so  bap- 
tism imposes  and  enforces  obedience  in  both  cases. 
These  are  the  Doctor's  proofs  —  and  now  he  be- 
comes intensely  animated.  "  In  our  country,  there 
are  large  numbers  who  become  enlightened,  and 
consequently  unhappy  on  this  subject.  They  feel 
as  if  they  must  obey  Christ,  but  how  can  they  ? 
May  not  every  one  do  what  he  shall  think  to  be 
his  duty?  Ee  reject  infant  baptism  !  If  he  dare 
essay  so  bold  an  act,  he  is  taunted  and  ridiculed  as 
presuming  to  be  wiser  than  the  thousands  of  the 
great  and  good  who  have  gone  before  him.  Re- 
proached !  Insulted !  Scoffed !  Upbraided  with 
a  want  of  respect  for  his  parents  and  friends,  who 
believed  in  it,  and  who  had  him  baptized  in  his » 
infancy.  —  Re  leave  his  own  church  I  —  Rethink 


132  INFANT     BAPTISM, 


of  uniting  with  another  church  !  If  he  dare  he 
will  be  at  once  denounced  as  weak-minded,  vacil- 
lating and  unstable.  It  will  be  rung  in  his  ears 
that  not  much  confidence  is  to  be  placed  in  the 
religion  or  intelligence  of  those  ^renegades'  who 
are  going  from  one  church  to  another.  He  join 
the  Baptist  church !  For  that  church,  above  all 
others,  he  has  been  taught  to  cherish  disrespect ! 
He  believes  its  members  to  be  mostly  ignorant 
fanatics,  with  whom  intercourse  must  always  be 
painful.  All  this,  and  only  to  be  baptized !  Had 
he  not  better  give  it  up  at  once  ?  These  are  some 
of  the  barriers  that  infant  baptism  throws  in  the 
way  of  obedience"  (pp.  160,  161).  Are  you  in 
earnest,  Doctor?  Alas,  you  have  proved  too  much. 
You  say,  these  ^Marge  numbers'^  have  become 
^^  enlightened  J '  and  therefore  '' unhappy" — how 
then  can  they  believe  the  "  members  of  the  Bap- 
tist church  to  be  mostly  ignorant  fanatics?"  or 
"think"  of  joining  "the  Baptist  church,  with 
whom  intercourse  must  always  be  painful  ?"  Now 
the  truth  is,  such  persons  (and  there  are  not 
"  many")  are  not  "  enlightened,"  and  hence  th^i/ 
are  rendered  "unhappy'^  by  the  obtrusive  zeal, 
the  shameless  spirit  of  proselytism,  and  the  cap- 
tious sophisms  of  your  own  brethren.  If  these 
unhappy  persons  had  been  better  "  enlightened," 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  133 


they  would  have  been  proof  against  the  sophisms, 
the  false  opinions,  and  the  miserable  acquisition 
of  a  morbid  conscience,  which  inclined  them  to 
your  way  of  "  obedience/'  It  is  emphatically  true, 
that  "  large  numbers"  reared  and  educated  in  the 
Baptist  church,  when  converted  in  revivals  in 
Paedo-Baptist  churches,  desire  to  join  these 
churches — and  now  what?  Are  they  not  "re- 
proached ?  —  insulted  ?  —  scoffed  ?  They  join  the 
Ps&do-Baptist  churches?  —  the  churches,  above  all 
others,  for  which  they  have  been  taught  to  cherish 
disrespect  f — and  so  on.  The  lament  of  the 
Doctor  is  nothing  more  than  the  whine  and  the 
cant  of  bigotry,  the  grumbling  of  discontent,  and 
the  mortification  of  proselytism.  It  is  the  ground- 
less assumption,  that  the  Baptist  church  only 
"  obeys  Christ,"  and  that  the  whole  family  of 
evangelical  Paedo-Baptist  churches  must  be  lost, 
for  they  all  disobey  Christ !  The  Doctor  delibe- 
rately declares,  "  I  have  known  many,  and  from 
my  heart  have  pitied  them,  who  lamented  in 
secret  their  inability  to  act.  They  were  always 
unhappy.  Their  consciences  were  perpetually  up- 
braiding them.  But  they  remained  in  disobe- 
dience" (p.  162).  Any  man  who  could  entertain 
such  opinions  of  infant  baptism  as  are  expressed 
in  the .  Doctor's  book,  if  he  be  honest  in  his 
12 


134  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


opinions,  and  sincere  in  his  sympathy,  should 
rather  "pit/'  the  great  multitude  of  Pasdo-Bap- 
tists,  who  are  guilty  of  voluntary  disobedience, 
than  the  "many"  among  them,  who,  he  says, 
^Mament  in  secret  their  inability  to  act/'  The 
:special,  heart-felt  "  pity,"  therefore,  seems  to  be 
.rather  the  grief  of  a  blind  and  fruitless  zeal,  than 
'the  sympathizing  sorrow  of  genuine  piety.  And 
also  the  enthusiastic  "thanks  to  Grod,"  that 
"there  are  persons,  who  rise  superior  to  every 
restraint,  and  obey  at  whatever  hazard  —  and  can, 
and  do,  burst  the  bonds  of  infant  baptism,''  is 
rather  the  shout  of  sectarian  fervor,  and  the  grati- 
fication of  partizan  anxiety,  than  the  exultation  of 
Christian  charity,  and  the  "joy  in  the  Holy 
Ghost."  He  says,  such  persons  "are  character- 
ized by  strong  and  independent  minds,  firmness  of 
purpose,  deep  piety,  and  a  readiness  to  sacrifice  all 
for  Christ"  (p.  162).  It  is  surprising,  to  what  an 
extent  bigotry  perverts  the  judgment,  and  cor- 
rupts the  heart.  As  far  as  our  observation  ex- 
tends, we  never  knew  one  person,  educated  pro- 
perly in  the  evangelical  Paedo-Baptist  churches, 
who,  possessing  the  noble  attributes  of  character 
specified  by  the  Doctor,  withdrew  and  united  with 
the  Baptist  church — not  one  —  but  we  have 
known  several,  not   many,  who,  either  weak   in 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  135 


judgment,  or  fickle  in  will,  or  superficial  in  piety, 
or  ready  ,to  sacrifice  all  for  self,  or  governed  by 
worldly  whims  and  motives,  or  disafiected  with 
their  brethren,  have  withdrawn  from  our  churches, 
and  sought  a  congenial  home  in  the  Doctor's 
church — just  as  several  have  had  "independence, 
firmness,  piety,  and  self-denial"  enough  to  leave 
our  churches,  and  very  many  the  Doctor's  church, 
and  united  themselves  with  the  Camphellites.  At 
one  time,  the  Doctor  tells  us,  there  is  a  constant 
"  drain"  made  upon  the  evangelical  Paedo-Baptist 
churches  by  removals  to  Eomanism  and  Puseyism, 
and  of  course  this  proves  the  "independence, 
firmness,  piety,  and  self-denial"  of  these  seceders  I 
At  another  time,  he  tells  us,  "  the  numbers"  of 
this  noble  class  in  the  evangelical  churches  "  are 
rapidly  multiplying,"  and  that  "  they  hnow,  and 
dare  do  their  duty  —  by  joining  the  Baptist 
church.  But  the  argument  is  just  as  good  for  the 
Camphellites,  Komanists,  and  Puseyites,  as  for  the 
Baptists.  And  the  Doctor  may  be  reminded,  that 
many  leave  the  Baptist  church,  and  unite  with 
the  evangelical  Pasdo-Baptist  churches.  Some 
leave  the  Baptist  church,  because  they  cannot  ap- 
prove the  doctrine  of  restricted  communion — and 
some,  because  they  cannot  believe  the  dogma  of 
exclusive   immersion  —  and   some,    because   they 


136  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


think  they  can  innocently  unite  with  their  friends 
in  the  Psedo-Baptist  churches  —  while  others,  for 
these  reasons,  though  brought  up  in  the  Baptist 
church,  never  join  the  Baptist  church  —  and  yet 
we  lay  hut  little  stress  on  these  facts  in  the  argu- 
ment against  the  Baptists,  and  we  place  no  confi- 
dence in  a  similar  mode  of  reasoning  against  infant 
baptism. 

XII.  The  next  general  argument  of  the  Doctor 
is:  '^Infant  baptism  is  an  evil,  because  of  the 

CONNECTION  IT  ASSUMES  WITH  THE  MORAL  AND 
RELIGIOUS     TRAINING    OF     CHILDREN''    (p.    164). 

The  first  step  of  the  Doctor  is,  to  defend  the  moral 
and  religious  training  of  Baptist  children,  and  all 
he  says  of  them,  we  say  of  evangelical  Paedo-Bap- 
tists'  children,  and  so  at  once  flatly  disprove  the 
argument  of  this  whole  chapter,  .  The  Doctor 
ridicules  the  idesi  o^  pareiital  vows  made  at  the 
time  the  children  are  baptized.  What,  is  there 
no  sin  or  ''  evil"  in  this  ?  He  who  deliberately 
asserts  it,  is  guilty  of  the  aggravated  crime  against 
parental  and  divine  love,  and,  we  fear,  this  crime 
the  Doctor  does  commit.  "  And  what  do  they 
vow  ?  Why,  that  they  really  tvill  do  what  God 
Almighty  has  commanded,  and  discharge  an  obli- 
gation which  no  vows  of  any  kind  can  either  ab- 
solve, or  render  more  binding  \"  (p.  169.)    What 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  13 1 


else  the  Doctor  says  under  this  argument  is  but 
a  repetition  of  what  he  had  assumed  again  and 
again  in  support  of  the  preceding  arguments  of 
his  book,  and  which  we  have  already  considered. 
We  will  add,  that  the  assumption  is  positively 
proved  to  be  false,  by  the  exemplary,  prominent, 
and  excellent  moral  and  religious  training  of 
Paedo-Baptist  children  throughout  the  land ;  and 
the  "  evils"  of  such  a  training,  personal  or  rela- 
tive, public  or  private,  intellectual,  social,  moral, 
religious,  official,  civil,  or  national,  exist  only  in 
the  fruitful  imagination  of  the  Doctor. 

XIII.  The  next  general  argument  of  the  Doc- 
tor is :  "Infant  baptism  is  an  evil,  because  it  is 

THE  GRAND  FOUNDATION  UPON  WHICH  RESTS 
THE    UNION   OF   CHURCH   AND    STATE"    (p.    176). 

This  is  a  "grand"  mistake,  as  shall  be  proved 
from  the  Doctor's  premises.  The  church  and 
state  are  not  united  in  our  country,  and  the  Doc- 
tor himself  admits,  that  "  three-fourths  of  all  the 
children  in  the  United  States  are  baptized,  and 
members  of  the  churches"  (p.  121).  The  Doctor 
himself  concedes,  that  the  union  of  the  church 
and  state  existed  before  infant  baptism  prevailed. 
"  It  [the  union  of  church  and  state]  was  fashioned 
upon  the  principles  oi  paganism''  (p.  181).  After 
mentioning  many  "  most  disastrous  results  which 
12* 


138  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


immediately  arose"  from  this  union,  he  adds, 
^^  another  resuU  v^^SiS  to  give  prevalence  to  iV</a/?^ 
haj)tism"  (p.  182).  And  Mr.  Hinton,  a  Baptist, 
an  author  quoted  hy  the  Doctor  as  follows,  cotj- 
cedes  the  same  thing  :  "  We  find  it  indelibly  re- 
corded on  the  pages  of  history,  that  the  practice 
of  baptizing  infants  did  not  spread  extensively  till 
after  Christianity  became  the  state  religion  of  the 
Roman  empire"  (p.  182).  Very  well;  then  infant 
baptism  was  the  effect,  and  not  the  ^'foundation" 
of  the  "union  of  church  and  state."  But  the 
Doctor  is  wrong  both  in  his  concessions  and  in  his 
conclusions.  Infant  baptism  existed  he/ore  the 
union  of  church  and  state  occurred,  and  then, 
after  the  union,  infant  baptism,  like  the  gospel, 
was  abused,  and  perverted  from  its  original  sim- 
plicity and  purity.  The  gospel  itself  was  so  far 
perverted  as  to  be  made  the  foundation  of  the 
union.  And  therefore  when  the  Doctor  says, 
"Destroy  infant  baptism  and  you  destroy  the 
union  of  church  and  state"  (p.  184),  we  reply. 
Destroy  the  gospel,  and  you  destroy  the  same 
union.  One  conclusion  is  as  sound  as  the  other. 
And  therefore  the  gospel  is  an  "  eviV  Or 
destroy  the  civil  constitution,  and  you  destroy  the 
union  of  church  and  state.  And  therefore  the 
civil  constitution  is  an  "  evil."    The  Doctor's  pre- 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  139 


mises  prove  too  much,  and  therefore  his  argument 
falls  to  the  ground.  This  is  but  an  example  of 
his  mode  of  reasoning,  repeated  throughout  his 
book,  and  in  the  same  manner  his  whole  book  may 
he  refuted. 

XIV.  We  proceed  to  his  fourteenth  general 
proposition,  which  is:  "Infant  baptism  is  an 
evil,  because  it  leads  to  religious  persecu- 
tions" (p.  185).  His  first  argument  "  is  found 
in  the  nature  of  Psedo-Baptism  itself  It  brings 
into  the  church  the  whole  population  of  the 
country  where  it  prevails.  And  such  a  church 
will  inevitably  be  a  persecuting  church''  (pp.  185, 
186).  What,  did  not  the  Jews  persecute  the 
Christians,  crucify  Christ  the  founder  of  the 
Christian  church,  and  kill  all  the  apostles  but 
John  ?  and  the  Doctor  assumes,  that  infant  bap- 
tism was  unknown  at  this  time.  Besides,  after 
the  time  of  Constantino,  when  the  churches  perse- 
cuted each  other,  it  was  not  upon  the  ground  of 
opposition  to  infant  baptism,  for  the  Peedo-Bap- 
tist  churches  persecuted  each  other.  Nor  did  the 
church  commence  the  work  of  persecution  till  it 
became  corrupt ;  and  the  Doctor  himself  concedes, 
as  we  have  seen,  that  the  church  became  corrupt 
before  infant  baptism  generally  prevailed.  More- 
over,   the   world  also   persecuted   the    Christian 


140  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


clmrch  in  its  infancy,  as  the  early  history  of  the 
church  proves,  and  when  the  church  becomes  un- 
holy, it  will  also  become  persecuting,  and  hence 
corruption,  and  not  infant  baptism,  "  leads  to  per- 
secution/' And  hence,  should  the  Baptist  church 
become  corrupt,  and  the  restraints  of  civil  au- 
thority be  removed,  *'  it  will  inevitably  be  a  per- 
secuting church."  Because  infant  baptism  is  found 
associated  with  a  persecuting  church,  is  no  proof 
at  all  that  infant  baptism  is  the  foundation  or 
source  of  the  spirit  of  persecution;  especially 
when  infant  baptism  exists  in  such  a  church  in  a 
perverted  and  corrupted  form ;  for  infant  baptism, 
like  everything  originally  pure  and  evangelical, 
has,  in  such  a  case,  been  modified,  abused,  and 
perverted.  But  this  is  arguing  from  the  abuse  of 
that  which  in  itself  is  good ;  and  so  the  Doctor 
might  as  fairly  argue  that  the  Bible  itself  "  leads 
to  persecution." 

The  Doctor's  "  second  proof  is  found  in  the  po- 
litical connection  which,  when  practicable,  infant 
baptism  always  assumes"  (p.  186).  "And,"  he 
adds,  "  the  fact  is  well  known  that  every  state 
church  in  all  ages,  and  in  all  countries,  has  been  a 
persecuting  church"  (p.  187).  We  have  already 
considered  this,  but  will  add,  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, and   the    Church  of  Scotland,  are  Paedc' 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  141 


Baptist,  and  these  churches  are  not  persecuting 
churches^  fiDr  it  is  one  of  the  glories  of  these 
countries,  that  they  now  exercise  a  liberal  and 
tolerant  spirit  to  all  dissenting  sects  under  the 
government  of  Great  Britain.  Besides,  in  our 
country,  Paedo-Baptism  almost  universally  prevails, 
and  there  is  no  country  on  earth  so  free  from  per- 
secution as  ours;  in  which  infant  baptism  does 
not  even  "  assume"  to  establish  a  ^'  political  con- 
nection  ',''  but  in  which  the  strongest  supporters  of 
infant  baptism  are  the  strongest  opposers  of  such 
a  connection.  Indeed,  the  union  of  church  and 
state  can  never  occur  in  our  country  till  infant 
baptism  itself  is  corrupted  and  abused ;  and  con- 
sequently, infant  baptism,  as  it  exists  in  evangeli- 
cal purity  in  our  land,  is  one  of  the  strongest  bar- 
riers in  Christendom  to  the  union  of  church  and 
state,  and  so  is  one  of  the  firmest  safe-guards 
against  "  persecution."  And  the  same  we  say  of 
every  other  evangelical  institution,  and  every 
evangelical  doctrine,  of  Christianity.  Till  these 
are  perverted  and  corrupted,  the  union  of  church 
and  state  is  impossible  in  our  country ;  and  pre- 
served in  their  purity,  they  are  infallible  preserva- 
tives against  the  spirit  of  religious  persecution ; 
for  that  which  preserves  and  perpetuates  the  purity 
of  the  church,  will  secure  the  universal  exercise 


142  INFANT     BAPTISM, 


of  the  spirit  of  tolerance  and  forbearance.  It  is  a 
question  of  much  more  fearful  import,  whether 
the  very  essence  of  exclusiveness,  found  in  the 
baptistical  dogmas  of  restricted  communion  and 
immersion,  may  be  made  the  foundation  of  the 
union  of  church  and  state,  and  so,  upon  the  Doc- 
tor's premises,  whether  the  exclusiveness  of  the 
Baptist  church  "  leads  to  persecution."  Upon  the 
supposition,  that  the  Baptist  church  shall  possess 
the  majority  of  the  suffrages  in  our  republic,  who 
can  say,  that  the  Baptist  church  would  not  then 
proceed  to  adopt  some  civil  regulations  upon  the 
principle  of  its  present  religious  exclusiveness,  with 
all  the  cruel  and  bloody  sanctions  of  '^persecu- 
tion?'' But  we  will  not  pursue  this  inquiry, 
since  we  desire  not  to  assail,  but  to  meet  the 
assaults  of  the  Doctor. 

The  Doctor  proceeds :  "A  third  proof  is  derived 
from  the  source  [Judaism]  of  the  main  argument 
upon  which  infant  baptism  relies  for  support" 
(p.  188).  We  have  already  proved,  that  this  is  a 
false  assumption  of  the  Doctor.  But  granted ; 
and  then  pure  Judaism  itself  was  a  persecuting 
church,  and  so  God  himself  was  the  founder  of 
a  persecuting  church !  This  is  but  another  in- 
stance of  the  Doctor's  refutation  upon  his  own 
premises. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  143 


"In  the  last  place,  I  appeal  to  the  testimony 
presented  by  facts"  (p.  188).  We  will  notice  the 
Doctor's  facts.  "  Popery,  before  the  Reformation, 
poured  out  upon  our  Baptist  Fathers  all  the  fury 
of  its  malignant  heart"  (p.  188).  And  so  it  did 
after  the  Reformation,  upon  the  evangelical  Psedo- 
Baptist  churches.  And  what  is  most  surprising, 
the  Doctor  himself  concedes,  that  the  Baptist 
church  originated  in  the  midst  of  persecution, 
"  in  the  centre  of  the  general  community,  or 
church  within  the  church.  A  new  baptism  (im- 
mersion),'' says  he,  "  was  to  be  the  instrument 
for  gathering  congregations,  which  were  to  consist 
exclusively  of  true  believers"  (p.  191).  Very 
well;  then  the  Baptist  church  was  not  founded 
till  the  Reformation.  And  what  is  as  surprising, 
the  testimony  of  his  "  Baptist  Fathers"  is  fatal  to 
the  assumption  of  the  Doctor.  "  The  baptism  of 
infants,"  said  they,  "is  a  horrible  abomination 
[which  the  Doctor  says,  in  a  note,  is  "  most  true"], 
a  flagrant  impiety,  invented  by  the  evil  spirit,  and 
by  Pope  Nicholas  II."  (p.  191.)  Granted;  and 
then  Popery  existed  before  infant  baptism  was 
"  invented,"  and  so  infant  baptism  did  not  "  lead 
to  the  religious  persecutions"  of  the  Romish 
church.  And  what  is  equally  surprising,  D'Au- 
bigne,  the  witness  of  the  Doctor,  and  quoted  as 


144  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


follows  bj  Wm,  gives  the  true  cause  of  the  perse- 
cution of  the  Doctor's  ^^ Baptist  Fathers."  "Un- 
doubtedly the  spirit  of  rebellion  existed  among 
these  Ana-Baptists"  &e.  (p.  192.)  Yes,  rehellion 
against  civil  law.  The  Doctor  adduces,  as  another 
fact,  the  persecutions  in  England.  But  unfortu- 
nately for  this  argument,  the  Baptists  were  not  the 
only  subjects  of  persecution,  nor  were  they  perse- 
cuted merely  because  of  their  opposition  to  infant 
baptism,  as  the  Doctor  himself  ought  to  know  (if 
he  does  not  know),  from  the  history  of  the  times. 
Besides,  "  Cranmer,  Kidley,  Rogers,  and  others/' 
Paedo-Baptists,  as  the  Doctor  himself  mentions 
them,  were  also  persecuted,  and  perished  at  the 
stake.  The  Doctor,  again  and  again,  affirms,  that 
the  "principal  crime"  of  his  ^^ Baptist  Fathers" 
was  "the  denial  of  Infant  baptism."  And  this 
is  refuted  by  the  fact,  that  Psedo-Baptists  them- 
selves, thousands  of  them,  fell  in  the  horrible  per- 
secutions of  those  times.  But  the  Doctor  surren- 
ders the  whole  question  in  the  following  candid  or 
extorted  concession.  "  The  persecutions  we  have 
so  long  suffered  are  now,  in  the  more  enlightened 
Christian  nations,  happily  beginning  to  be  re- 
laxed" (p.  198).  We  might  have  adduced  proofs 
from  history  to  show,  that  the  Ana-Baptists,  the 
Doctor's  "Baptist  Fathers,"  did  not  suffer  mainly 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  145 


"for  their  denial  of  infant  baptism/'  but  we  are 
saved  this  trouble  by  the  Doctor  himself  in  his 
quotation  from  D'Aubigne.  "'The  Ana-Baptists/ 
aays  D'Aubigne,  '  did  not  confine  themselves  to 
questions  purely  religious.  They  demanded  the 
abolition  of  tithes/  "  &c.  To  the  concluding  sen- 
tence of  the  Doctor,  "  And  as  political  liberty  ex- 
tends itself,  Baptist  principles,  and  Baptist  people, 
will  cover  the  earth"  (p.  200),  we  reply,  that  if 
the  Baptists  of  this  country  were  to  adopt  and 
practice  the  principles  of  their  '^Baptist  Fathers/' 
they  would  now  and  henceforth  be  opposed  and 
put  down  as  rebels,  traitors,  heretics,  in  proportion 
as  "political  liberty  extended  itself,''  and  so 
perish  from  "  the  whole  earth."  Indeed,  the 
Baptist  church  now,  in  this  country,  and  in  every 
other  country,  would  go  as  far  in  persecuting 
other  churches  as  "political  liberty"  and  public 
opinion  would  allow  —  if  the  Doctor's  book  is  to 
be  made  the  standard  of  opinion  of  infant  baptism, 
as  shall  be  shown  in  the  following  section. 

XV.  The  fifteenth  general  proposition  of  the 
Doctor  is:  "Infant  baptism  is   an  evil,  because 

IT  IS  CONTRARY  TO  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  CIVIL 
AND    RELIGIOUS    FREEDOM"    (p.    203).       His   first 

argument  is  drawn  from  "Popish  countries."  We 
reply  again,  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  that,  and 
13 


146  INFANT     BAPTISaJ 


SO  the  argument  goes  for  nothing;  since  infant 
baptism,  in  Popish  countries,  is  abused;  while 
evangelical  Paedo-Baptist  churches,  in  this  coun- 
try, oppose  the  "Popish"  abuse  with  all  their 
strength.  It  is  preposterous,  therefore,  to  argue 
from  the  abuse  of  infant  baptism,  against  its 
evangelical  purity  and  important  benefits.  And 
the  Doctor  concludes,  "  No  Popish  nation,  there- 
fore, ever  has  been,  or  ever  can  be  free"  (p.  205). 
Granted,  and  nothing  is  gained  for  his  argument; 
for  no  "Popis/i"  nation  can  ever  be  free  till 
infant  baptism  is  restored  to  its  evangelical  purity, 
and  all  corruptions,  ceremonial  and  doctrinal,  are 
removed  from  the  Romish  church. 

But  what  is  more  absurd  still,  is  the  universal 
conclusion  which  the  Doctor  draws  from  particular 
premises.  Having  stated,  that  Popish  nations, 
such  as  "  the  states  of  South  America,"  are  not 
free,  he  concludes,  "Infant  baptism  is  at  the 
foundation  of  the  slavery  of  the  nations"  (p.  205). 
In  the  first  place,  infant  baptism  is  not  at  the 
foundation  of  the  slavery  of  Popish  nations, 
though  we  grant  it  for  the  sake  of  argument.  No 
doubt  infant  baptism,  in  its  abused  and  corrupt 
form,  contributed  something  to  confirming  the 
slavery  of  those  nations;  but  the  foundation  of 
slavery  was  laid  before  infant  baptism  was  cor- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  147 


rnpted,  and  the  Doctor  himself  being  judge,  hefore 
infant  baptism  generally  prevailed.  Secondly,  the 
nations  of  Africa  generally,  and  other  nations  of 
the  earth,  among  whom  infant  haptism  is  not 
known,  are  in  the  most  miserable  servitude  con- 
ceivable. And  thirdly,  our  nation  enjoys  the 
highest  civil  freedom  of  the  nations  of  earth. 
Our  nation,  by  the  blessing  of  Grod,  achieved  this 
freedom  when  it  was  Paedo-Baptist ;  and  Wash- 
ington, the  leader  of  our  Psedo-Baptist  armies, 
and  the  father  of  our  Psedo-BapHst  nation,  was 
himself  baptized  in  infancy.  And  ever  since  our 
freedom  has  been  obtained,  the  nation  has  been 
advancing  in  civil  liberty,  and  the  evangelical 
Psado-Baptist  churches  in  prosperity.  The  Doctor 
may  reply,  this  is  ascribable  to  the  advancement 
of  the  Baptist  church;  but  we  retort,  the  pros- 
perity of  the  Baptist  church  is  attributable  mainly 
to  the  progressive  influence  of  the  evangelical 
Pasdo-Baptist  churches  in  the  United  States. 

To  the  assertion,  that  "  infant  baptism  is  con- 
trary to  the  principles  of  religious  freedom,"  we 
reply  farther :  there  is  no  country  on  earth  so  free 
in  this  respect  as  ours.  And  it  is  worthy  of  ob- 
servation, that  all  the  fine  rules  the  Doctor  gives, 
by  which  civil  and  religious  freedom  may  be  pre- 
served, are  the  very  rules  which  evangelical  Psedo- 


148  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


Baptists  found  upon  the  sound  principles  con- 
tained in  the  institution  of  infant  baptism;  and 
which  they  apply  in  the  education  of  their  chil- 
dren, for  the  establishment  and  promotion  of  civil 
and  religious  freedom.  The  Doctor  soon  saw  this 
frowning  rock  against  which  he  was  driving,  and 
forthwith  attempts  to  steer  clear  of  it,  lest  he  be 
dashed  in  pieces  —  but  in  vain  —  the  very  effort 
is  destruction.  "  But  these  facts  and  arguments, 
I  am  reminded,  are  predicated  of  infant  baptism 
as  it  exists  in  connection  with  Popery,  and  that  it 
does  not  necessarily  follow  that  they  are  true  of  it 
when  practised  in  connection  with  Protestantism. 
In  America  the  very  atmosphere  we  breathe  is 
essentially  anti-Paedo-Baptistic.  Here  infant  bap- 
tism is  comparatively  a  dwarfish  and  contemptible 
thing"  (pp.  207,  208).  Again,  the  Doctor  must 
refute  himself:  "  Three-fourths  of  the  population 
of  this  country  are  Pcedo-Baptistic."  He  hoists 
all  sail,  and  with  the  shriek  of  despair  rolls  upon 
the  rock.  And  yields  —  ''It  can  never  flourish 
here.  It  is  out  of  its  element,  and  does  not  pro- 
duce its  mature  fruits"  (p.  209).  Well  donej 
then  it  does  not  destroy  civil  and  religious  freedom 
here,  though  three-fourths  of  the  population  are 
Foedo-Baptistic  ! 
In  conclusion,  if  ''it  is  true,  that  infant  bap- 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  149 


tism  is  contrary  to  the  principles  of  civil  and  reli- 
gious freedom"  (p.  209),  then  should  the  Baptist 
church  ever  be  able  to  do  it,  it  should  put  down 
Peedo'Baptism  as  treason,  a  civil  "evil  and  a 
curse"  (p.  209),  and  therefore  the  Psedo-Baptist 
churches  may  anticipate  persecution  from  the  Bap- 
tist church,  should  it  ever  acquire  power  enough  to 
revive  Ana-Baptism^  or  repeat  Romanism.  How- 
ever, we  feel  no  apprehension ;  for  Paedo-Baptism 
has  already  overturned  Ana-Baptism,  and  routed 
B-omanism;  and  it  wiirkeep  the  Baptist  church 
within  proper  bounds,  wherever  it  attempts  to  act 
upon  the  Doctor  s  principles. 

XVI.  The  sixteenth  general  argument  of  the 
Doctor  is  :  "  Infant  baptism  is  an  evil,  because  it 

ARRESTED    THE    REFORMATION    MIDWAY    IN    ITS 

course"  (p.  210).  The  Reformation  rescued 
infant  baptism  from  much  of  its  Romish  corrup- 
tions, and  restored  it  to  comparative  simplicity 
and  purity,  which  the  evangelical  Paedo-Baptists 
have  since  effectually  done.  Luther  rejected  tran- 
substanfiation,  but  believed  in  consubstantiation, 
both  of  which  the  evangelical  churches  utterly 
reject.  The  Reformers,  with  Luther  at  their 
head,  were  Paedo- Baptists,  and  the  Doctor  says  of 
the  Reformation,  '^This  was  the  character  of 
early  Protestantism,  and  it  was  the  character  of 
13* 


150  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


the  religion  of  the  Apostlps.  No  other  can  he  true'' 
(p.  213).  Then  we  need  go  no  farther  —  the  Re- 
formers were  Psedo- Baptists.  This  is  enough. 
The  Doctor's  arguments  are  diminishing  in  length 
and  not  increasing  in  strength,  and  our  replies  are 
accordingly  brief,  and  less  tedious. 

XYII.  His  seventeenth  general  argument  is : 
"  Infant  baptism  is  an  evil,  because  it  injures 

THE    CREDIT    OF    RELIGION    WITH     INTELLIGENT 

MEN  OF  THE  world"  (p.  218).  How  does  it 
happen,  then,  that  so  many  intelligent  men  arc 
pious  and  useful  members  of  the  evangelical  Paedo- 
Baptist  churches?  and  that  so  many  intelligent 
men  of  the  world  advocate  infant  baptism,  and 
attend  divine  service  in  Paedo-Baptist  churches? 
If  they  believed  it  was  treason,  as  the  Doctor  does, 
would  they  do  this  ?  If  they  believed  it  was  folly, 
would  they  do  this?  If  they  believed  it  was 
heresy,  would  they  do  this  ?  It  is  enough  to  say, 
this  proposition  is  flatly  disproved  hj  facts.  And 
we  only  add,  the  Doctor  has  not  only  the  courage 
to  reflect  upon  the  intelligence  of  ^^  three-fourths^^ 
of  our  enlightened  republic,  but  the  efirontery  to 
admonish  the  intelligent  Paedo-Baptist  churches 
in  the  language  of  Scripture  :  ''  Cast  ye  up,  cast 
ye  up,  prepare  ye  the  way,  take  up  the  stumbling 
block  out  of  the  way  of  my  people"   (p.  222). 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  151 


Stumbling  hloch!  one  is  at  once  reminded  of 
"  dose  commuvion"  —  and  we  respectfully  suggest 
to  tlie  Doctor  the  propriety  of  shouting  this  Scrip- 
ture at  the  very  altar  of  his  own  church,  as  Hall 
and  Noel  have  done  before  him.  If  the  Doctor 
were  as  zealous  in  opposing  the  errors,  we  will  not 
say  "evils"  in  his  own  church,  as  he  is  in  op- 
posing the  truth  in  the  evangelical  Paedo-Baptist 
churches,  he  might  accomplish  real  good  for  "  the 
million.'* 

XVIII.  His  eighteenth  general  argument  is : 
'^  Infant  baptism  is  an  evil,  because  IT  enfee- 
bles   THE    POWER   OF   THE   CHURCH   TO   COMBAT 

error''  (p.  221).  And  here  the  Doctor  refers  to. 
"P<9piW  errors  again;  against  which  the  evaa-^ 
gelical  Paedo-Baptist  churches  are  contending 
with  all  their  might ;  and  they  have  done  nearly 
all  that  has  been  done  to  convert  the  world;  to 
emancipate  the  human  race ;  they  have  put  down 
the  Ana-Baptists;  and,  we  repeat,  they  have  con- 
tributed for  centuries  to  make  the  Baptist  church 
what  it  is,  and  are  still  combatting  the  errors  in 
the  Baptist  church,  that  they  may  make  it  still 
better.  This  is  specially  a  weak  chapter,  and  we 
might  have  omitted  it  altogether. 

XIX.  His  nineteenth  general  proposition  is  : 
"Infant  baptism  is  an  evil,  because  IT  is  the 


152  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


GREAT  BARRIER  TO  CHRISTIAN  UNION"  (p.  229). 

You  forget,  Doctor,  ^^  close  communion^'  is  that 
•"barrier.  And  you  forget  likewise,  that  you  said 
linfant  baptism  brings  the  tohole  world  into  the 
church  —  and  that  is  the  design  of  the  gospel; 
and  so  all  being  in  the  church,  and  in  subsequent 
life  becoming  Christians,  all  can  enjoy  Christian 
union,  and  so  infant  baptism  lies  at  the  foundation 
•of  Christian  union — the  Doctor  himself  being 
judge  !     We  pass  on. 

XX.  His  twentieth  general  proposition  is: 
^'  Infant  baptism  is  an  evil,  because  it  prevents 

THE  SALUTARY  IMPRESSION  WHICH  BAPTISM  WAS 
DESIGNED  TO  MAKE  UPON  THE  MINDS  BOTH  OF 
THOSE  WHO  RECEIVE  IT  AND  THOSE  WHO  WIT- 
NESS ITS  administration"  (p.  233).  Our  reply 
is  briefer  than  the  proposition.  If  infant  baptism 
universally  prevailed,  the  indelicacies,  inconve- 
niences, and  unhappy  influences  of  immersion 
would  be  banished  from  the  world. 

XXI.  The  twenty-first  and  last  proposition  of 
ihe  Doctor  is :  "  Infant  baptism  is  an  evil,  be- 
vcause  it  retards  the  designs  of  Christ  in 

THE    conversion    OF    THE    WORLD""    (p.    238). 

This  proposition  is  so  insignificant,  that  we  shall 
despatch  it  with  a  single  remark.  The  Reforma- 
tion of  Luther  commenced  with  evangelical  Pdsdo- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  153 


Baptists.  The  Weslejan  Reformation  commenced 
with  evangelical  Psedo-Baptists.  And  it  is  re- 
markable that  no  Beformation  has  ever  com- 
menced with  Baptists.  And  the  world  is  in  a  fair 
way  to  be  converted  now,  through  the  instrumen- 
tality of  evangelical  Paedo-Baptists,  while  the 
Baptist  church  is  gradually  improved  by,  and 
borne  along  on  the  tide  with,  the  evangelical 
Psedo-Baptist  churches.  Such  is  the  history  of 
the  past  and  present,  and  the  prospect  of  the 
boundless  future. 

"We  have  but  a  single  observation  to  add,  and 
shall  then  close  this  reply  with  some  references 
to  the  general  character  of  the  book  and  its 
author. 

The  sophism  that  runs  through  the  Doctor's 
whole  book,  and  which  is  the  foundation  of  his 
whole  book,  is  this :  the  Doctor  confounds  hereti. 
cat  Psedo-Baptist  churches  with  evangelical  Paedo- 
Baptist  churches,  and  holds  the  latter  responsible 
for  all  the  "evils?  and  "corruptions''  of  the 
former — a  mode  of  argument  that  is  manifestly 
unfair  and  inconclusive.  This  unfairness  is  the 
more  remarkable  in  him,  since  he  pursues  a  fair 
method  of  reasoning,  in  opposing  the  views  of 
some  of  his  own  denomination  who  wrote  in  favor 
of  open  communion  :  "  they  deal,"  says  he,  "  in 


154  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


generals,  discuss  arguments,  and  controvert  doc- 
trines, that  do  not  obtain  among  us"  *  —  which  is 
the  very  discrimination  he  should  have  made,  be- 
tween corrupt  and  evangelical  churches,  and  which 
is  the  very  argument  on  which  they  defend  them- 
selves against  the  conclusions  drawn  by  him  against 
infant  baptism.  Again :  "  Were  there  Baptists 
among  the  men  of  Munster,  and  is  our  church 
therefore  responsible  for  all  the  excesses  of  the 
mass  in  that  scene?  But  no  sensible  man  will 
brand  a  whole  denomination  with  shame,  for  the 
follies,  or  the  crimes,  of  a  few  individuals  who 
may  chance  to  be  ecclesiastically  connected  with 
it."  f  Very  well ;  why  then  associate  the  evan- 
gelical Pasdo-Baptist  churches  indiscriminately 
with  corrupt  Paedo-Baptist  churches,  and  then 
"  brand  with  shame"  the  former  for  all  the  "  fol- 
lies," and  ''■  crimes,"  and  "  evils"  of  the  latter  ? 
It  is  evident,  at  least,  that  the  Doctor  could  make 
the  proper  discrimination  when  upon  the  defensive, 
and  justice  and  candor  required  the  same  of  him 
when  upon  the  offensive. 

*  Howell  on  Communion,  p.  13.  t  ^^^  V- 18. 


CONCLUSION 


The  "  concluding  addresses''  are  the  exhorta- 
tions of  prejudice,  the  ebullitions  of  uncharitable- 
ness,  the  jugglery  of  proselytism,  the  scheme  of 
schism,  and  the  crowning  "  evils"  of  the  volume. 
From  beginning  to  end  the  book  is  evil,  and  the 
only  consolation  of  the  pious  heart  is,  that  "  the 
million"  will  detect,  on  every  page  in  it,  the 
elements  of  its  own  conclusive  refutation  The 
author  displays  a  mind,  whose  character  is  hatred 
to  infant  baptism,  and  whose  ultimate  object  is  its 
extermination.  x\nd  yet,  in  the  attempt,  he  min- 
gles neither  the  subtlety  of  sophistry,  nor  the 
solidity  of  reasoning.  Instead  of  obtaining  enrol- 
ment among  the  defenders  of  truth  as  the  reward 
of  courage  and  victory,  he  is  to  be  associated  with 
the  opposers  of  Protestantism  as  the  recompense 
of  temerity  and   defeat,   and   the   price    of  the 

(155) 


156  INFANT     BAPTISM 


calumnies  whicli  he  has  thrown  upon  illustrious 
men  and  evangelical  churches.  He  has  written  in 
a  spirit  inconsistent  with  the  dignity  of  the  Chris- 
tian ministry,  and  indulged  in  a  tone  of  severity 
unsurpassed  by  the  most  malignant  champions  of 
infidelity  and  heresy  in  any  age,  and  hence  his 
work  can  contribute  nothing  to  the  advancement 
of  "  baptistical'^  dogmas,  much  less  of  true  piety. 
He  seems  to  be  ignorant  of  the  most  obvious 
truth,  that  violence  only  strengthens  opposition 
and  confirms  prejudices;  and  is  equally  incapable 
of  overturning  the  truth  and  suppressing  error. 
Of  an  ardent  spirit,  without  penetration,  the 
Doctor  fails  to  discriminate  between  true  courage 
and  rashness,  modesty  and  boldness,  courtesy  and 
rudeness,  zeal  and  vehemence,  meekness  and 
dogmatism,  charity  and  asperity.  And  of  an 
exclusive  bias,  he  confounds  abuses  with  evils, 
truth  with  error,  the  sanctities  of  Christianity 
with  the  profanations  of  Popery,  the  institutions 
of  Grod  with  the  inventions  of  men,  and  the 
purity  of  the  church  with  the  corruptions  of  the 
world.  His  book  is  a  libel  on  Christendom, 
ascribing  to  infant  baptism,  one  of  its  institu- 
tions, every  thing  horrible,  abominable,  scanda- 
lous, seditious,  infectious,  treasonable,  schismati- 
cal,  heretical,  detestable  and  destructive;  a  libel 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  157 


to  which  Christian  charity  can  never  affix  her  seal, 
and  Christian  forbearance  can  hardly  be  extended. 
It  is  the  sound  of  the  tocsin  of  religious  battle 
against  Christendom,  calling  "the  million' '  to 
arms,  and  the  dismal  note  is  given  with  a  pecu- 
liar, undefinable  joy,  which  is  at  once  the  luxury 
and  reproach  of  a  bigoted  and  ungenerous  spirit, 
originating  in  the  combined  force  of  the  elements 
of  human  nature,  ill-regulated  religious  zeal,  and 
misconceptions  of  the  genius  and  vital  doctrines 
and  institutions  of  Christianity.  If  we  are  to 
believe  the  Doctor,  he  has  entered,  as  he  states 
in  his  preface,  upon  a  great  reformation.  But  he 
displays  neither  the  abilities  nor  the  qualifica- 
tions requisite  for  such  a  work.  There  is  not,  in 
his  whole  book,  one  argument  of  the  persuasive, 
sober  majesty  of  truth.  In  his  attack  upon  what 
he  calls  "evils,''  he  displays  neither  vivacity 
nor  energy,  but  presumption  and  dogmatism. 
His  reasonings  being  little  more  than  pompous 
flourishes,  or  ludicrous  conceits,  are  without  evi- 
dence or  solidity.  His  style  is  simple,  without 
force,  beauty,  or  elegance.  He  is  endued  with 
neither  the  acuteness,  nor  the  force  of  genius, 
nor  the  learning,  nor  the  piety,  nor  the  candor, 
to  place  him  among  reformers,  much  less  at  the 
head  of  them.  He  is  neither  a  theologian,  nor 
14 


158  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


logician,  nor  philosopher,  nor  scholar ;  for  he  pos- 
sesses neither  the  grasp  of  intellect,  nor  the 
extent  of  attainments,  nor  the  purity  of  spirit, 
that  constitute  those  elevated  characters.  With- 
out liberality,  his  expositions  seem  to  have  origi- 
nated in  considerations  of  a  party  nature,  and 
possess  nothing  of  that  comprehensiveness  of 
design  resembling  the  amplitude  of  the  sacred 
Scriptures.  It  is  true,  he  indulges  in  a  spirit 
of  free  inquiry  and  independence,  but  not  that 
which  is  essential  to  the  character  and  work  of  a 
great  reformer,  but  characteristic  of  an  enthu- 
siast, pursuing  a  chimera,  as  if  it  were  the  greatest 
achievement  of  the  age,  and  the  greatest  blessing 
to  be  transmitted  to  the  future ;  while  his  labor 
is  virtually  anti-Christian,  and,  in  fact,  contro- 
versial suicide,  since  in  every  step  of  his  argu- 
ment he  betrays  a  criminal  ignorance  of  that 
which,  in  infant  baptism,  belongs  essentially  to 
our  common  Christianity,  and  that  which  properly 
belongs  to  the  general  mass  of  the  corruptions 
and  profanations  of  systematic  heresy.  Had  he 
accurately  and  with  delight  surveyed  the  heavenly 
land,  and  the  whole  field  of  polemic  theology, 
he  never  would  have  returned  with  such  a  temfic 
report;  his  book  would  never  have  appeared. 
A  Reformer !     On  him  can  never  be  fixed  the 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  159 


admiring  gaze  of  posterity;  to  him  can  never 
be  awarded  the  wages  of  laborious  piety;  and 
from  him  can  never  be  transmitted  that  brilliant 
and  useful  light  which  imparts  heat  and  life  to 
distant  ages.  But  in  the  presence  of  the  in- 
tense and  intensely  increasing  light  now  in  the 
heavens,  his  book,  not  as  a  splendid  orb  that 
gilds  the  clouds  and  mountain  tops  as  it  rises, 
but  as  an  inferior  star  that  wanes  upon  its  first 
appearing,  is  to  be  blotted  out  from  the  moral 
firmament.  And  a  reformer,  if  required,  would 
be  a  martyr,  and  by  his  martyrdom  accelerate 
the  march  of  mind  from  superstition,  and  error, 
and  slavery,  to  the  pure  worship,  and  truth,  and 
freedom  of  primitive  Christianity,  and,  so,  by  his 
blood,  strengthen  the  cement  that  unites  the 
church  of  God  indissolubly,  and  establishes  it 
immovably  upon  the  Eock  of  Ages;  and  not, 
by  amassing  imagined  ^' evil"  upon  "evil,"  at- 
tempt to  overturn  the  church,  in  order  to  pro- 
mote the  prosperity  of  interested  communities, 
and  aggrandize  and  immortalize  himself.  Like 
men  of  an  inferior  spirit,  advocating  a  bad  cause, 
he  is  warm  and  vigorous  in  the  first  attack,  but 
fainter  and  weaker  to  the  close  of  the  contest, 
where  his  spirits  wholly  evaporate;  like  the  an- 
cient  Gauls,  who,  in   the   beginning   of  battle, 


160  INFANT     BAPTISM. 


were  more  than  men,  but  in  the  end  were  less 
than  women.  Nothing  can  be  more  ludicrous 
than  self-sufficiency  in  men  of  inferior  abilities, 
and  nothing  can  be  fairer  than  modesty,  which, 
in  men  of  superior  abilities,  like  the  flame,  trem- 
bles as  it  aspires. 


THE    END. 


